BCC Minutes 06/13/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 13, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE-CHAIRPERSON:
ALSO PRESENT:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's call to order the June 13th
meeting of the board of county commission. Mr. Dotrill, would you
lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, this morning we have so
much to give thanks for. I think that we can praise your name and
give thanks for your glory and your grace. We certainly give thanks
for the return of our naval pilot, the young man that we've all
watched across the nation. We give thanks for his safe return.
Father, this morning we give thanks and the opportunity to recognize
young people in our community, in this particular case, girls'
fast-pitch softball. And we give thanks for what they represent to
Collier County and also to Naples. Father, we give thanks for the
county commission, the dedication that they bring, the conviction that
they bring to their jobs. We ask that you bless and watch over their
decisions here this morning and that you would bless our time
together. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Dorrill, looks like you have
a few changes to the agenda.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Commissioners.
We have very few changes to the agenda this morning.
I have one add-on item that will be under the Board of
County Commissioners' portion of the report and will be 10-B. It is a
request for support concerning funding for the community development
block grant as it pertains to the Home Investment Partnership
Program.
I have one request to withdraw an item under the
constitutional officer portion of the agenda, which was ll-A. I
believe we approved that item last week, and it just inadvertently
appeared again on the index this week.
I have two reminders for me under communications, and
that is all that we have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Cuyler, are -- do you
have things you need to change?
MR. CUYLER: No, Madam Chairman, no additional changes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Thank you. Commissioner Norris.
Nothing further.
Commissioner Hancock.
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
No.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'll have one item under
BCC communications, but nothing else.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I have nothing either to
change except one item also under communications.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, I'll make
a motion that we approve the agenda and consent agenda with changes as
noted.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and the consent agenda. No further discussion,
I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #3
CORRECTED MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 1995 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I move that we
accept the corrected minutes of the April 25, 1995, regular meeting.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the corrected minutes of April 25th, 1995. All those in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #4A1
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE MEMBERS OF THE NAPLES HIGH SCHOOL GOLDEN
EAGLES GIRLS' FAST-PITCH SOFTBALL TEAM AS STATE CHAMPIONS - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda are proclamations and service
awards. First is a proclamation, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am thrilled to be able to -- to
announce this proclamation for the Naples -- Naples girls' fast-pitch
softball championship. And I would like to ask those of you who were
involved to come forward and face the camera while I read the
proclamation. Didn't even get to get out of school. I'll read the proclamation now.
Whereas, the Naples High School Golden Eagles girls'
fast-pitch softball team has won the 1995 class 4-A state
championship; and,
Whereas, the members of the Naples High School Golden
Eagles girls' fast-pitch softball team won their third consecutive
fast-pitch state championship; and,
Whereas, the Naples High School Golden Eagles girls'
fast-pitch softball team has won their eighth state title in nine
seasons; and,
Whereas, the Naples High School Golden Eagles girls'
fast-pitch softball team en route to this state championship won
district, subregional, and regional titles; and,
Whereas, the outstanding performance of the Naples High
School Golden Eagles girls' fast-pitch softball team was due to many
hours of hard work, teamwork, and dedication on the part of the
athletes and their coaches;
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the Naples High School
Golden Eagles girls' fast-pitch softball team and its head coach,
Robert Iamurri; assistant coaches, Vince Murphy and Rick Turner; and
the individual players, KimAmrose, Kristen Amrose, Michelle Bliven,
Nikki Boudreau, Sara Cannon, Nicole Curry, Eva Dimitrov, Crystal
Hamilton, Hindi Harris, Nikki Kalavitis, Emily Koester, Lynn Miller,
Hichelle Hoschel, Katie Newton, Jenny Rogers, Mary Salley, and
Kristine Turner be hereby recognized and honored for their athletic
performance and sportsmanship.
Done and ordered this 13th day of June, 1995, by the
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
I'd like to move approval of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Congratulations.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: In addition -- and in addition to
the proclamation, I have a plaque that reads the Collier County Board
of County Commissioners honors Naples High School Golden Eagles girls'
fast-pitch softball team, and I'd like to present that to you as
well.
(Applause)
MR. IAMURRI: On behalf of Naples High School, I'd like
to thank the commissioners for recognizing these young ladies. I can
honestly say they're fine ball players, but they're also fine young
ladies off the field. And we're very proud of them, and I hope they
will represent the future of Collier County when they go off to
college. People will be very proud that they represent this area very
well. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a left fielder among
you?
Well, yeah, there are some people in left field. I mean
some people say that I'm still there, but I used to play left field.
Item #4A2
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE BARRON COLLIER HIGH SCHOOL COUGARS GIRLS'
FAST-PITCH SOFTBALL TEAM AS STATE CHAMPIONS - ADOPTED
Next proclamation on the agenda, Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I believe we have some
representatives and coaches for the Barren Collier High School girls'
fast-pitch softball team. If I could ask you to come on up and be
recognized, please. I see one name on here that might be misspelled.
Jennifer -- is it Justi or Lutsi? Is it s-t-i or t-s-i? MS. LUTSI: T-s-i.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was my mistake. I
thought it was Justi. I kept hearing her name during the basketball
season.
Whereas, the Barren Collier High School Cougars girls'
fast-pitch softball team has won the 1995 class 5-A state
championship; and,
Whereas, the members of the Barren Collier High School
Cougars girls' fast-pitch softball team has won their third fast-pitch
state championship; and,
Whereas, the Barren Collier High School Cougars girls'
fast-pitch softball team while en route to this state championship won
district, subregional, and regional titles; and,
Whereas, the Barren Collier High School Cougars girls'
fast-pitch softball team has a record of 31 and 5; and,
Whereas, the outstanding performance of the Barren
Collier High School Cougars girl's fast-pitch softball team was due to
many hours of hard work, teamwork, and dedication on the part of the
athletes and their coaches.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the Barren Collier High
School -- School -- excuse me, Cougars girls' fast-pitch softball team
and its head coach, John Palmitane; assistant coaches, Charlie Babb,
Sarah Gerald, Andy Kalupy, Tom Rife, and Deug Robinson; and their
individual players, Christina Alessandri, Jeanette Babb, Kary
Chadwick, Melissa Czapla, Erin Davenport, Dana Dais, Sendra Hall,
Brooke Hjertaas, Jennifer Lutsi, Tina Markoff, Patricia Marks, Cam
Morgan, Andtea Muzi, Meaghan Robinson, Jackie Scialde, Jenny Traul,
Nicele Tremblay, Becky Wallace, Katie Wallace, and Nicele Winfield are
hereby recognized and honored for their athletic performance and
sportsmanship.
Done and ordered this 13th day of June 1995, signed
Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation
on behalf of the Barren Collier High School Cougars girls' fast-pitch
softball team.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, we also have a plaque
for the school listing the players' names on it. And on behalf of the
board, thank you very, very much. We have some -- give that to you
too. Give you the whole package.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Congratulations.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Congratulations.
MR. PALMITANO: I'd like to thank the board for
recognizing some people that actually work hard. Unfortunately
sometimes the only teenagers that ever get seen are the ones you see
on television being arrested. There's a lot more of them that are
more than willing to work hard and achieve. Thank you for the award
and recognition.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #4A3
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE ST. JOHN NEUMANN CELTICS GIRLS' FAST-PITCH
SOFTBALL TEAM AS STATE CHAMPIONS - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next proclamation,
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, as we continue our
climb to being the softball capital of the world, if I could ask the
St. John Neumann Celtics girls' softball team to come on up.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the end of the proclamation --
fast-pitch softball is a real twister.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And whereas the St. John
Neumann Celtics girls' fast-pitch softball team -- doesn't even have
to wait until the end of the proclamation.
Whereas, the St. John Neumann Celtics girls' fast-pitch
softball team has won the 1995 class 2-A state runner-up title; and,
Whereas, the members of the St. John Neumann Celtics
girls' fast-pitch softball team are 1995 District 12 class 2-A
champions; and,
Whereas, the St. John Neumann Celtics girls' fast-pitch
softball team are champions of Region 3, class 2-A play; and,
Whereas, the outstanding performance of the St. John
Neumann Celtics girls' fast-pitch softball team was due to many hours
of hard work, teamwork, and dedication on the part of the athletes and
their coaches; and,
Whereas, credit is also due to the families of these
outstanding athletes and all of the fans who have enthusiastically
supported and recognized the positive role model these students
exemplify for all the youth in our community,
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the St. John Neumann
Celtics girls' fast-pitch softball team and its head coach, Marisela
Gutierrez; and its assistant coaches, Anita Swope and Laurie White;
and the individual players, Jennifer Mahar, Chrissy Bolser, Cartie
Goett, Marsette Losana, Melissa Mahar, Chrysti Winfield, Hazeen Ashby,
Megan Klokochar, Gina Swope, Shanda Costa, Emily Danca, Laura Major,
Melissa Caron, and Start Miners are hereby recognized and honored for
their athletic performance and sportsmanship.
Done and ordered this 13th day of June 1995, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews,
Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve
this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second to
approve the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0, and
congratulations.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have a few words to say?
MS. GUTIERREZ: I do have a couple more kids that have
walked in outside.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They just got out of batting
practice.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Batting practice? That will work
too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what we've seen here
today is indicative of a youth program here that builds the kind of
players that we see in our high schools, and I congratulate each and
every one of you.
MR. DORRILL: We might just -- as a little public
service announcement, it's my understanding that -- that tournament
play at the district and sectional levels of the little league and
what will be the world series for girls' fast-pitch softball will be
in Naples this year for the first time in a long time. And I'm not --
the district and sectional play begins when, Robert?
MR. IAMURRI: It will be -- July 3rd is when the
district will start, and then later in the month the sectionals will
start.
MR. DORRILL: For people who want to see some truly
outstanding world-class caliber little league fast-pitch softball,
district and sectional play will begin the third of July, and stay
tuned to the sports page for exact location and time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Come out and root ^splg? on the
home team.
MR. DORRILL: Good entertainment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Great entertainment. Thank you.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Another marvelous thing that team
sports do is it makes good, solid adults willing to work as team
members, and it's great at that.
Item #4A4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 25 - JULY 1, 1995, AS
CUBS-AMERICAN HERITAGE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
Next proclamation, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I ask
Mr. Valdes to come forward for this proclamation, please. Mr. Valdes,
if you'll face the camera, please. We're on national television.
It's being transmitted worldwide.
The proclamation reads: Whereas, the Cuban-American
community of Collier County is an essential part of this county's
identity; and,
Whereas, the Cuban-American community of Collier County
has had the opportunity to enjoy the freedom and the human rights that
this nation offers, and they at the same time have contributed with
their blood and their work in the defense of the ideals and values of
the United States of America; and,
Whereas, our Cuban-American community is an integral
element in the development of domestic life in Collier County, as well
as our nation; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners supports the
Collier County Cuban-American community and encourages its continued
participation in community affairs and community efforts to maintain
and improve the quality of life in Collier County.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 25th
to July 1st, 1995, be designated as Cuban-American Heritage Week. Done and ordered this 13th day of June, 1995.
Miss Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept
this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to accept
the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, the motion passes 5 to 0.
(Applause)
MR. VALDES: In behalf of the Cuban-American community
in Collier County, I want to say you five commissioners, thank you for
your support, and go ahead with your good job. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda are
service awards. The first one I'd like to award is Robert DeCamp
who's been with parks and recreation for five years. Is he here?
(Applause)
MR. DE CAMP: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. See you around for
ten?
MR. DE CAMP: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next service award is one
that we don't get to award very often, but I'm quite pleased to do
it. Do we have Luz Pietri here? Luz has been with us for 20 years.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Certificate and I guess your
third pin now, isn't it? MS. PIETRI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fourth. Five, ten, fifteen, and
twenty. Thank you very much.
MS. PIETRI: Thank you.
(Applause)
MS. HELLINGER: Commissioners, I'd like to read into the
record a letter that Luz is about to receive.
Dear Luz, what a joy it is to congratulate you, not only
on 20 years of loyal and dedicated work, but also on your selection as
county employee of the month for June. I am really impressed by the
quality of service that you have provided through thick and thin, to
say nothing of your never-ending patience with all the problems that
have landed in your lap. Then on top of all that, you have had to
contend with the personalities of all the members of the Library
Advisory Board. Believe me, I am impressed. Your award as county
employee is well earned, and on behalf of the LAB, please accept my
warmest appreciation for all your long and devoted service. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For the court reporter that was
Sid Hellinger, the Library Advisory Board.
Item #4C1
LUZ H. PIETRI, OF THE PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EHPLOYEE
OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE 1995
And now I have the pleasure, as I do each month, to
recognize the employee of the month. And I'm going to ask the same
person to come forward again, Luz Pietri. She is our employee of the
month, and it gives me great pleasure to tell you a little bit about
what she has been doing for the last 20 years.
Luz, do you want to turn around? Turn around. Thank
you. Want to see your smiling face.
She's been a stabilizing factor to the public library.
She does her job so well for so long. She's developed the patience
and the skills to be an outstanding employee. Over the course of time
she's learned how to deal with the problems, to recognize them, and to
solve them. She's a tremendous asset to the library system. She
assists both staff and patrons. She also in her spare time, wherever
that is, volunteers for special projects, county functions. She has
become an outstanding hard working employee, a model citizen, and just
an extremely nice person. She also has great customer service skills
and has achieved excellent ratings on her performance appraisals
during the 20 years she's been with us. For these reasons Luz has
been selected by her contemporary peers as our employee of the month.
And with that I would like to read to you a letter that
we have written. It is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your
selection as Collier County's employee of the month for June 1995.
This well-deserved recognition is for your valuable contributions to
the county through your work in the public services division
department. This honor includes an exceptional performance plaque as
well as a $50 cash award which I am proud to present to you. On
behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I offer our sincere
congratulations and also our gratitude for your dependability and
dedication.
This is the plaque. It's quite nice looking. It says
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, employee of
the month, official recognition and appreciation is tendered to Luz
Pietri for exceptional performance June of 1995. Let me congratulate
you.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
Item #4C2
2ND ANNUAL BIKE-TO-WORK DAY CORPORATE CHALLENGE: COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT (2ND YEAR); NAPLES BEACH HOTEL & GOLF CLUB (2ND YEAR); THE
CONSERVANCY; AND CUSTOM DOCK & REPAIR - PRESENTED
And we have a final presentation, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's -- it's a -- it's a lot of
fun for me to get to be involved in this Bike-To-Work Challenge that
Collier County has for two years now organized. And it -- this year's
was on May 17th, and we had the second annual Bike-To-Work Day
Corporate Challenge where Collier County corporations were challenged
to bike, walk, skate, car pool, or telecommute to work. And so I'd
like to present these awards to the corporation who did a great deal,
put forth a great deal of effort organizing their teams. I'm pleased
to announce that the major employer award goes to Collier County
government for the second year, and I'd like to ask Mr. Dotrill if he
would come forward and accept the award.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's great.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The second award is for the large
employer award, and if Susan Weising is here, if she would accept for
the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club also winning for the second
year.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the medium employer award, if
Susan Nichols-Lucy is here, I'd be happy to present it to the
Conservancy.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And finally the small employer
award goes to Custom Dock and Repair with Lisa Orkney-Smith
accepting.
(Applause)
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. It was a real
physically active presentation proclamation morning, wasn't it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, can we get that next
year by only challenging companies smaller than us?
Item #5A
BUDGET AMENDHENT 95-319 - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Move on with the agenda, the next
item is approval of budget amendments. Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record I'm Mike Smykowski, acting budget director. There is one
budget amendment report.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is already a motion and a
second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the budget amendment. Is there discussion? There being none,
I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #SA1
RESOLUTION 95-358 GRANTING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO CLEAR AND FILL
PARTS OF TRACTS 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 IN WIGGINS BAY, PHASE I - ADOPTED
SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS WITH AMENDMENTS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda under the county manager's report, community development, item
8-A-l, a recommendation to approve a resolution.
MR. KUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
my name is Tom Kuck. Item 8-A-1 is a recommendation to approve a
resolution granting permission to Power Corporation to clear and fill
upland areas of tracts 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in Wiggins Bay phase number
1. I'm going to refer you -- I'll refer over to the map. This is a
map of the tracts 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Wiggins Bay phase 1. It's
bounded on the north by Sabal Palm, on the east by Gulf Harbor Road
and Vanderbilt. I'm sorry. This project is bounded on the west by
Vanderbilt Drive, on the north by Wiggins Pass Road, and on the
easterly side by Gulf Harbor Road.
Power Corporation is currently installing a retaining
wall which I've outlined in red along here which separates developable
area, this area in here, from the drainage easement and the preserved
area. The retaining wall was approved and permitted by South Florida
Water Management, the Corps, and Collier County.
The petitioner is requesting permission to come in and
clear this little area here (indicated) which is about a quarter of an
acre and this area here (indicated), which is about one acre. They
would like to then take and fill this future building site area, which
is about 4 or 5 feet lower than Wiggins Bay Drive and the top
elevation of the retaining wall being put in here.
The adjacent property owners, the Wiggins Bay
Foundation, which is developed here on the north side -- there's a
letter in the -- in the packet where they are supportive of this to
try and get rid of the low-lying areas that don't drain properly,
stagnant water, and for an overall beautification of it. Power
Corporation has agreed that if they are granted permission, they will
take -- fill this, revegetate the whole area and transplant some of
the sabal palms that we salvage out of these two areas and plant a
buffer zone along here on 30-foot centers and provide the proper
irrigation for it and maintain that until they go ahead and develop
this property.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Tom, if I -- if I
may. Basically we have a property that's being brought up to grade to
eliminate ponding, and we have neighbors who want this done so that
there's no objections to this?
MR. KUCK: That -- there's no objection from the
neighbor. And a little bit of the history, this was a PUD dating back
to 1982, and the previous developers of the Wiggins Bay went into
receivership, and SunBank took the property over. About a year ago or
less Power Corporation acquired this project, and they're pursuing and
trying to get it ready for development purposes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, are there public
speakers? Two?
MR. CUYLER: There are two public speakers. The first
is -- the first is Fran Stallings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While he's coming up, can I ask a
couple questions?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, I don't know if these are
questions for you or somebody else, but I was just curious about the
position of this on the agenda. There's not a petition available for
this? A variance wouldn't be appropriate or, you know, why is this in
the morning kind of an agenda instead of in a process in the
afternoon? Maybe -- maybe somebody who is more in charge of those --
and I know that's not your area; that's why I figured it was probably
a question for somebody else.
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold of your
planning services department. About six months ago the board -- we
had brought a request to you similar to this one in which you directed
us to work on an amendment to the Land Development Code. And we're
currently working with the Development Services Advisory Board trying
to structure an amendment to our Land Development Code that would give
us some administrative authority to look at these situations,
especially related to single-family building requests. This one is a
little -- a little different in that it's probably going to be a
multifamily configuration but, nonetheless, there's no current
procedure that we have, and it's not really a public hearing-type
item. It's something that currently we don't have the administrative
authority to handle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why wouldn't it be a variance
from a code requirement? I mean do I understand that basically
there's a rule against this clearing prior to submission of a
development plan?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so the -- what we're doing is
-- we're being asked to do is -- I mean this may be a great idea.
I'm just -- I don't understand why it's not -- it isn't a variance,
for example. Why wasn't it processed as a variance?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's one option that we have for
handling that. Historically we haven't dealt with this type of
request in that manner. We've brought those back to the board for --
under community development for consideration. We certainly could,
and in the interim time between the time we can develop a Land
Development Code amendment, which will probably occur sometime later
this fall, any future requests we could certainly consider as an
amendment to the building code and the Land Development Code.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'm not -- I'm still not
sure I understand, but I'll give up. But the other question that I
have is what's the rationale for the rule?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the rule is in place and has
been in place for some time to protect against sort of the clearing,
indiscriminate clearing of properties, and that it lays foul for some
period of time. It can have exotic invasion when you have clearing
without some other safeguards in place. In this particular case the
applicant is going to put in a landscaped buffer and maintain the
site, post a bond for that purpose. And I think we're protected from
-- from that. They're also removing a lot of exotic vegetation from
the site, and they have an obligation to maintain that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the bond it sounds like gives
us adequate protection against the concerns that are the rationale for
the rule. I mean that's what -- what I thought I was reading here,
but I wanted to be sure.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. And I think we have a little -- we
can go into this in as much detail as you would like, but we have some
difficulty in that the Land Development Code currently allows us some
-- some administrative ability through the site development plan
process. However, the administrative building code strictly prohibits
any clearing and filling prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Part of the issue that we have with a variance, for
instance, would be the timing. That goes through planning commission
and then to the board of zoning appeals. On an issue like this we can
come -- it's not an advertised public hearing. We can get it on in a
two-week period of time. And in this particular case I think the
applicant will tell you that they're up against the time clock trying
to meet their Army Corps of Engineer permit deadlines to get some of
the construction work done for their well and restoration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? Mr. --
MR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings representing the Florida
Wildlife Federation. We're quite concerned about this, because we've
had what you might call an orderly measured process that we go through
to ensure quality developments. And as Mr. Arnold just stated, one of
the reasons for not doing this sort of thing is to prevent
indiscriminate clearing and other kinds of problems. I think it sort
of says it right here in your considerations in the very first
paragraph where it says the Collier Land Development Code, Ordinance
91-102 as amended, currently restricts specific site work such as
grading and filling of lots until such time that applicable building
permits have been issued. And now we see this as a short-circuit of
the process. This particular case may have merit. It may have a lot
of merit, but there are ways to solve the problem as opposed to going
out and doing the clearing with no guarantee that -- of what kind of
development will take place or when or whatever. So I think what I'm
saying is that this -- like I said, this -- this particular project
may have merit, but this is not the way to go about doing it. We've
set up a process, and the process was designed for certain reasons.
This short-circuits it, and I'm not sure it's even legal. Perhaps Ken
can address that. But we are opposed to the granting of this variance
or whatever you want to call it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Dorrill, we have
another speaker?
MR. DORRILL: You do. Hiss Straton was so registered.
While she's coming forward, I have one question for the staff. And I
don't know -- Mr. Arnold, I might need your help on this also. Does
this compare in any way to the similar requests or what I would
perceive to be a similar request from the -- it's either Sterling Oaks
or Silver Oaks community that's on north U.S. 41 where they wanted to
come in and actually build or construct development pads as part of
their single and multifamily areas? Is this at all similar to that
request?
MR. KUCK: I'm not familiar with that request. I'm more
familiar with the one, if you'll recall, back in early January where
Don Arnold came forward -- MR. DORRILL: Okay.
MR. KUCK: -- and had a similar situation over in Naples
Production Park in a property over on Jeepers where they wanted to
clean up one site and clean up the other site and get permission to
take surplus material from Naples Production over to the Jeepers site
and fill that up. And that was brought before the board and
approved. So this is somewhat similar to that -- that project. MR. DORRILL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Straton.
MS. STRATON: My name is Chris Straton, and I'm here
representing the Collier County Audubon Society. And historically --
in fact, with Sterling Oaks we were here arguing also against allowing
clearing and fill without building permits. And because this issue is
being looked at within the development services steering committee
and, in fact, there's a workshop, because there's a difference of
opinion amongst environmental organizations and the development
community in terms of how we can meet our -- our goals of quality
development. I think it's very important that we do take this
opportunity to express our concern about the issue in general. The
specific project, you know, the merits of that will have to -- to rest
with you.
The reason why there's the concern about clearing and
filling without the building permit is despite wonderful plans, the
market sometimes is not there. The financing is not there.
Using South Hampton as an example, that was a project --
if we had allowed clearing and filling without building permits, we
would have had basically a wasteland from a vegetative standpoint for
several years with potential problems, with exotics, with problems
with, you know, dust, runoff, you know, water quality, all sorts of
those types of issues, which is really the -- the general issue. The
vegetation provides a purpose for water quality, for habitat, and
those types of things. And -- and that's why groups like Audubon are
concerned about making sure that we do not go through and remove that
vegetation before there are specific actions that will be coming into
play to save it, protect it, and make sure that we're not creating
problems as a result of the vegetative removal.
And so, therefore, since this is an issue that is going
to be debated within the development services steering committee, will
be debated during the Land Development Code amendment process, we
thought that it was appropriate as these individual projects come up,
is to make sure that we, again, argue the same sort of points so that
there's a consistency on our part. So that -- that's the particular
concern of this project. As has been mentioned, there are problems --
there have been problems with the project. We're concerned that
despite the -- the good intentions, we could have an area that ends up
just sitting there without any vegetation.
I'm concerned that there's mention in the document that
most of it is -- is exotic and Brazilian pepper, because the
petitioner's diagrams that talk about vegetation talk about -- do not
mention an extensive amount of Brazilian pepper. It talks about
pine-flat woods and other areas that are high-quality uplands, so
that's a particular concern. So those are my comments, and I leave it
to your judgment on this particular one. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom, if I see -- understand the
diagram correctly -- and I don't know the exact amount, but when this,
quote, unquote, clearing and filling is done, there's going to be
maybe 30 or 40 percent of the property that remains vegetated? There
are two areas in which vegetation is being left; is that correct?
MR. KUCK: Yeah. The crosshatched area is a preserved
area, and that will stay vegetated. The solid green areas are the
areas that are currently vegetated, and that vegetate is proposed to
be removed and that area filled. That contains some of the exotics.
There's some of the sabal palms are in that area that would be
transplanted out along the south side of the Wiggins Bay Drive area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're saying those are the
areas in which currently vegetation exists -- that's it -- because I
see --
MR. KUCK: That -- that's it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- areas indicated as pine-flat
woods. Are they no longer there?
MR. KUCK: No. The -- the pine-flat woods are in the
solid green areas. All the area outside of the green has already
either -- been cleared for access to put the retaining wall in. And
in years past I think they used that site for staging area for some of
the other development. So now it's -- it's a very low area and
subject to flooding and the stagnant waters. And, again, the
developers propose to come in, remove the vegetation, and put
approximately 4 to 5 feet of fill in and revegetate it.
Now, that proposed site, I might also add, has been
approved for 320 units on approximately 5 or 6 acres. So once they do
get into the development, whether it's next year or 5 years from now,
it would be impossible to save any of the vegetation at that time.
And this is just a proposed site development plan or a conceptual
one. When you put the four proposed buildings on it and all the
parking, the site is pretty much consumed.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Hiss Hac'Kie.
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Tom, approximately how many acres
total are they proposing to clear?
MR. KUCK: There would be the large green area; solid is
approximately one acre. The other one, the little circle, is a little
over a quarter of an acre, so basically one and a half acres or less.
The entire usable site is between 5 and 6 acres.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did I hear you say they were going
to put 360 units on 5 or 6 acres?
MR. KUCK: 320 units and that's been approved. I think
there's four 21- or 22-story condominiums, what was originally
proposed and approved for that site.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And presently permitted? I'm
sorry, but --
MR. KUCK: And presently permitted.
MR. DORRILL: I'd be willing to say that the PUD here is
15 years old.
HR. KUCK: 1982.
HR. DORRILL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
we're all --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
13.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think
Everyone is a little agog.
We're not deciding that today.
I have two questions. One is you
said something that I hope if -- if this were cleared in the regular
development process, it would be impossible to save the trees?
MR. KUCK: That's correct, because you're going to be
placing, you know, 5 -- I'm going to say approximately 5 feet of fill
in so --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then, Chris, when you're
reviewing this in the amendments for the regs, for God's sake, we have
to change the process in a way that -- I have heard this from
developers before -- I'm going to take one second -- that we tell them
to save, save, preserve the trees. And then our process doesn't
permit them to save trees when they're clearing to begin development,
and we won't let them clear before development. Somehow, you know,
that has to be changed because --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a function of elevation.
You have to bring in certain fill to bring it up to an elevation above
the crown of the road, and you can't put 4 feet of fill on the base of
a pine tree and expect it to live.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if they clear it today, they
can save some of those trees. And if they clear it in the regular
process, they can't save any of those trees. I think that's what Tom
is saying.
MR. KUCK: And one of the pluses on this, if they are
granted permission to clear and fill, that they will be able to
transplant some of the existing sabal palms and use those as part of
the buffering area.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they couldn't do that in the
normal process?
MR. KUCK: They could -- if they came along later on,
yes, they could transplant. If they didn't fill the site now and
waited until they were developing it, they could salvage some of the
trees at that time also. And I -- and I think what makes this project
a little unusual is the low elevation that it's at, the existing
conditions of the site that have existed there for the last, you know,
10 or 12 years. And the positive thing is by bringing it up, they are
willing to come up with a vegetation plan and a buffering plan that is
compatible with the neighbors to the north.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a representative of the
developer here? Is that maybe you?
MR. NEALE: I am Jerry Neale with Turrell and Associates
representing Power Corporation. I will answer some of the questions
that were raised. I'll go over here and point to some of them.
The total site is 60 acres, and out of the 60 acres the
corps of engineers, environmental protection, and all the other
agencies agreed upon 11 acres to be considered uplands. And what the
project has done is -- the south half is wetlands, and the north part
is the upland. There are existing permits, and there are construction
activities going on where the clearing permit was issued in the
permits to construct. The delineation between the wetlands preserve
and the upland -- and this, as Tom said before, has been going on for
quite awhile. The developer went bankrupt. The bank took it back.
Power Corp. just now purchased it, and they're proceeding through.
This is also included in a PUD existing -- when the PUD was done,
there was 60 acres total. That's how come the density's so high. The
rule's now wetlands are here, so you can keep the same density per
acreage you own, but now you have to figure out how to construct it on
the upland piece that you have remaining.
The clearing permit was a banner (phonetic) corridor
going along the wetland area. It has been cleared, and at this time
there are ponds of water in here. We're not even in the rainy
season. And this is a complaint right now of a lot of people that are
living there and are seeing this site, that they would like to get rid
of the pending area. The pending area is now getting such that, yes,
the vegetation is there, but the site conditions has changed now, and
they will be flooded. So, therefore, they're no longer in dry soil.
They're going to be now in standing water.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jerry, while you're coming over,
I want to ask you a question. Is the pending condition on the uplands
a result of the retaining wall? I mean did you create the condition
when you cleared and constructed a retaining wall?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to be on the
microphone.
MR. NEALE: We took some photographs so that you can see
the condition that's out there right now at this time. This was a
compromise and agreement between all the state agencies and the
developer to lock in the exact location of where the wetland boundary
is. And the agreement was to put something there that would be of a
structure type so that it is well delineated where that line is. So
the contractor is building the wall per the agreement with the state
agencies as to what they have requested.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but I didn't get an
answer to my question. Did the wall create the pending condition, or
did it exist before the clearing of the area for the wall?
MR. NEALE: Both conditions. There was some pending,
and the adding of the fill for the road beds to install the wall has
also aggravated the situation to make it worse. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. NEALE: So what the developer is trying to do at
this time is to raise the site to be able to drain the water off.
There were questions brought about. The reasoning for not doing this
is you have no control over the site that would be left as a barren
site. The bond is going to be posted. The developer is committed.
He's going to put grass. He's going to put the trees in, so you don't
have the dust problems that were brought up. You don't have the
runoff erosion problem that was brought up, and you don't have the
barren look that they had brought up before. Those items are
addressed already.
Also there was a question about -- about the exotics and
what's going to happen to the property. There is right now a
monitoring program for the exotics that is in effect that our firm is
presently writing reports on to the state concerning this area because
of the agreement that was made for the delineation between wetlands
and the highlands. So the monitoring repert's there already. We're
already committed that we have to maintain the property to the state.
We're posting a bond to do this additional amount of fill.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, in just a minute I'll
ask you -- Dr. Stallings had made mention of whether or not this
process is, quote, unquete, legal. And I'll ask you to address that
in just a second.
Something that -- that's striking me here, and I'm glad
we talked about the acreage. We're talking about basically an acre
and a quarter of an area that by those areas doesn't appear to be
extremely dense in vegetation. But the whole reason behind the -- not
wanting to clear large areas was the indiscriminate clearing, and that
word keeps coming back and hitting me. What we're trying to avoid is
people coming out with large-scale projects and just wiping the
surface clean until they decided to do something, thereby reducing or
eliminating a habitat for period of years until something was built.
I don't think when we -- when this was -- was put into being that the
application was for an acre. I believe the scope was much larger, and
I think we're seeing a project like this that, according to those
pictures, there's pending on cleared areas. There's area that was
cleared that is now low. We have residents adjacent to it that are
apparently making complaints regarding insects, mosquitoes, those
kinds of things. Whether that's true or not, it does not matter. I
just think that the intent is that the indiscriminate clearing not
occur. And what we have here is a parcel that's come before this
board and our staff has looked at and assessed and made an
evaluation. Do we have any -- are we talking about clearing of any --
what you would consider -- wetlands, Tom or Jerry?
MR. KUCK: No. It's -- all the area north of the
retaining wall is considered upland area, and that's where the
clearing would occur.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'm coming to the --
there's a reasonableness to what is being asked here. And it's not
massive clearing of a heavily or densely vegetated area that has a
significant amount of habitat on it, and there is a problem of pending
of water and that type of thing. So I think the intent to not have an
indiscriminate amount of clearing is being met by this process.
But, Mr. Cuyler, regarding the assertion that there may
be some legal difficulty in pursuing it in this route; is that an
appropriate question?
MR. CUYLER: I think it is an appropriate question, the
sense that this has been a controversial issue for a number of years,
and there have been some very strong positions on both parts. The
development community has made very good arguments, very strong
arguments, and the environmental groups have made very strong
arguments and very good arguments. A lot of things Miss Straten said
are things I've heard before as part of these arguments.
I had Miss Ashton take a look at this, and our position
is that you can construe the current regulations to allow this. But
one of the problems we have is there's really not any guidelines in
the regulations. And, Commissioner Hancock, I think a lot of the
things you just said are very good and are relevant to this project.
What we need to do is incorporate them into our regulation so there's
some sort of criteria so you can look at when pending is a problem
versus other things or when there's not the indiscriminate removal of
vegetation and those types of things.
I've talked to Tom. Matter of fact, I talked to him
this morning and said if the board asks me, I'm going to indicate to
them that our position is that you can construe the regulations to do
this, but you need to get something into your Land Development Code.
And he said that they are already working on that, and Miss Straton
apparently is already aware of it, so the environmental groups are
already aware of that too. But we do need to get something into our
regulations to lay down some criteria of when you should and shouldn't
not do this type of thing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I had heard testimony of a
vital or important amount of habitat or something to that effect, I
really think it would sway me to take a harder look at this. But the
scope of this alone I think has met the intent of not being an
indiscriminate amount of clearing and going in and blitzing property
without any intent to come behind it and develop it within a
reasonable period of time. So I -- I don't have a problem with this
request. I just want to make that mention for the balance of the
board to discuss if there is significant amount of difficulty here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with that. The key is
we're not going in and disturbing some vast pristine natural habitat.
This area, Tom, you've told us is already greatly disturbed. MR. KUCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And it's going to be developed at
some point in time. And in the meantime, it's not in very good
shape. It looks like it would be an overall improvement to the
property to go ahead and do this. So I'll make a motion that we
approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
MR. KUCK: I have one question or one thing I would like
to add. While staff is recommending approval, the resolution is
subject to the four conditions of it. The county attorney's office
has recommended that we add two more conditions to that, and I'll read
those into the record. Item number 5, no construction of any building
or structure shall be performed without a building permit pursuant to
Section 2.7.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Condition
number 6, except as provided herein no other site work, removal of
protected vegetation, grading, improvement of property, or
construction of any type may be commenced prior to the issuance of a
building permit where a development proposed requires a building
permit under Land Development Code or applicable county regulations.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll incorporate those two
conditions into the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment.
MR. KUCK: Yes. It doesn't go into the resolution.
Those would be items number -- there's four conditions in the
resolution. This would be items 5 and 6 to be added to that
resolution.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about the
second condition in the resolution. I -- I thought that what we were
discussing is that the developer is going to post a bond to protect
against all of these problems that are potentially, you know, there if
you clear. I thought that this bond -- okay, let me see. Let me read
this. The bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of
$25,000 -- first of all, somebody told me that's enough -- will insure
that the final grading of the property meets county standards in
reference with -- and then it references the code. I don't see
anything in the resolution about a bond to be sure that the
landscaping is maintained or that the site -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The seeding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The seeding. It only refers to
the grading, and that's not what you guys have been talking about.
You're saying there's a bond that will protect us from all of these
potential problems.
MR. KUCK: I understand -- I understand what you're
saying, and I think it was our intent, but -- I'd have to get the
approval of the petitioner or Power Corporation, but I think the
intent was to provide that letter of credit in the amount of $25,000
to assure that grading took place and that the county would retain
that to make sure that that area that was seeded, vegetated, was
maintained.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so we'd need to -- I think,
Mr. Cuyler, wouldn't we need to amend the resolution in some fashion?
MR. CUYLER: You just expressed that intent. We'll make
sure the resolution says what you want it to say.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My vote would -- would require
that the -- that the bond -- that the bond be -- the bond insure the
compliance with landscaping and -- and grading. And are there other
issues? Somebody help me if there are more.
And then my second question, is $25,000 enough for
that? Who decided 25,000 was enough? And who wrote the resolution
that said final grading, because maybe that's the person who could
answer my two questions.
MR. KUCK: I wrote the resolution, and I understand what
your concerns are. We are requiring them, if this is approved, to
submit a grading plan and a revegetation plan. And that would have to
be approved by staff prior to giving them permission to go ahead with
the project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm interested in maintaining
it.
MR. KUCK: Once we saw that. But I guess the $25,000 --
we used a similar number on the project that I referred to earlier.
But in order to come up with the $25,000 -- I guess if that's the
right amount of money, we would have to see the proposed vegetation
plan and have their consultant or their environmentalist submit to us
an estimated construction cost of it, and the irrevocable letter of
credit would be for that amount.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to make sure the letter of credit
amount includes the vegetation, which includes the seeding and the
landscape buffer, the installation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: ANd maintenance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The maintenance question falls
under a code enforcement situation. We have other elements of the
code that says if it gets knee high or 18 inches -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or dies?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, for the landscape buffer
there's a minimum within our landscape code which says within a
certain period of time of planting if it dies, it has to be replaced
at the expense of the developer. So there are safeguards currently in
the code for those. But as far as the cost of installing them, we
need to make sure that letter of credit if the petitioner fails is
enough for us to go in, grade, seed, and plant and -- and we need to
be comfortable that that amount is sufficient. I agree with that
wholeheartedly.
MR. KUCK: I agree also.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless the petitioner can give us
an amount on the spot for seeding and landscaping that we can throw
into this 25,000 for an additional amount in the letter of credit, I
don't know that we have the --
MR. NEALE: Without having a plan before me to give you
the number of trees -- but sabal palms usually cost a hundred to a
hundred twenty-five dollars a piece to have them installed. When
you're talking about 25,000, that's a lot of trees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the seeding I guess is not
terribly expensive.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, that's not expensive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what we need then -- if 25,000
was enough for the grading, then -- I want to approve this. I mean I
want to vote yes for this, but there have got to be adequate
safeguards in here. And this resolution only refers to insuring
grading so --
MR. NEALE: You can change the wordage if you like to
include the vegetation in there. I think that was the intent, like
Tom said, and we agree that that was the intent, was to assure that it
be graded and grassed and vegetation, trees put on it. And we have no
objection to you adding that language into it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me do a little bit
of housekeeping here. We have a suggestion from staff to add two more
conditions to the resolution. They were accepted by the motion
maker. I don't remember hearing a second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second amending as well. All
right. We've got that cleaned up.
Now, I'm hearing some concern about whether $25,000 is
enough to meet the requirement contained within condition two. And --
is telling us that we need a vegetation plan in order to really -- to
really ascertain what the cost would be if the county had to do it
all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can -- I can clear up a little
bit. For one thing, just -- it needs to say to insure that -- final
grading and adequate vegetation. I mean that would -- that will
address that particular problem. Then the second issue becomes is
$25,000 enough for grading and vegetation. If we're talking a hundred
dollars a tree and how many trees --
MR. KUCK: Approximately 50 trees --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's --
MR. KUCK: -- and approximately, I would say, 5 acres of
seeding, sodding costs --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So add $10,000. How's that?
MR. NEALE: That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And to change the -- I believe
you're asking to amend a change to paragraph 2 to read to insure that
the final grading, seeding, and landscape buffer of the property meets
county standards consistent with --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, that's what I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that incorporate all of the
concerns?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The developer is amenable to
making these changes. Does the motion maker incorporate them, Mr.
Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Tell me the change again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To increase the 25,000 to 35,000
and to include final grading, landscaping, and seeding, I believe is
what I'm hearing; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Yes.
And this is in condition 2.
Yes.
Okay. I'll amend to that. Second amends.
Okay. Second amends. The motion
maker amends his motion to include those two items, and the second
amends his second to include them also. Is there further discussion
on the item?
There not being, I'll call the question. All those in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
MR. NEALE: Thank you.
Item #SB1 - Deleted
Item #882
COLLIER'S RESERVE, LTD. PROPOSAL FOR THE HEDIAN LANDSCAPING OF C.R. 846
(IHMOKALEE ROAD) FROM U.S. 41 TO C.R. 851 (GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD) -
APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is item 8-B-2, recommend the board approve the Collier Reserve
Limited proposal for median landscaping. Mr. Archibald.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. Agenda
item 8-B-2 is a landscaping contract for Immokalee Road between U.S.
41 and Goodlette-Frank Road. The agenda item is in follow-up to prior
board direction back in September to work with not only Naples Cay,
but with Collier Reserve to come up with a plan, a design to implement
the landscaping into -- to include a maintenance provision in the
contract. What you have before you today is an agreement which both
the developer and the county staff have reviewed and signed off on
relative to sharing in the cost of design and construction and the
county picking up the cost of the maintenance. That's in accordance
with the board's direction again back in September.
The dollar amounts that are at risk in regards to the
contract -- the design construction is not to exceed 140,000 upon the
part of the county, so the county is well protected. And part of the
agenda item outlines the cost of the work done to date, and again
that's in the favor of the county.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Archibald. This is
just ratification of what the board directed some time back. And if
there's no -- nothing different about this, I'll make a motion to
approve.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have some questions and
concerns on this. I don't think this is just ratification of what we
directed. What we directed was to go work with Naples Cay and see if
Collier Reserve is willing to participate in what they have in mind,
but we didn't have a particular plan in mind. I guess I have a
problem with this because we seem to have a whatever-goes-at-the-time
approach to this.
We did Vineyards maybe a year or so ago on Pine Ridge,
and the setup was completely different than this. They installed, I
believe, 100 percent of the cost of theirs, and our agreement was to
pay a lump sum up front for a ten-year maintenance agreement except
the -- they -- Vineyards agreed to do the maintenance, and they agreed
to do it at a cost that equaled -- I'm -- I can't remember. I think
it was about 55 percent of what our average median cost is. So the
point being, Vineyards ate a much bigger chunk. They didn't just put
some money up front and then from then on enjoy it, and this doesn't
seem consistent with that. I look at other parts of the county and --
and see either things that have already gone that communities have
paid completely themselves, or as we talk, I know you've got a plan
coming forward in a couple of months for a countywide plan.
It seems to me rather than do this one now that is
inconsistent with anything else we've done, we ought to wait until we
have the big plan come forward, see if this fits into that. But we
ought to have a comprehensive countywide policy of some sort on these
things rather than taking them one at a time and having them
completely individualized. There should be some consistency.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I have a question for
Commissioner Constantine, because I've heard some things about Mr.
Archibald's plan which I'm intrigued by, but under his plan there
would be -- is there any cost sharing?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, there would be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, okay. I just -- I was just
wondering. You make an argument about let's wait and see if we can do
better later, and I just wanted to make sure cost sharing was even a
part of that.
MR. ARCHIBALD: It may be helpful if you would like to
step back and take a look at the dollars as part of the Vineyards
contract.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: In the Vineyards contract I believe the
total cost was about $180,000 and, in fact, the county ultimately
picked up the construction cost and the first two years of maintenance
with the Vineyards performing the maintenance for the remaining
eight-year period, I believe. So, in fact, we're not being
consistent, but from an economic standpoint what we're receiving here
is of greater value to the county in that we're splitting the design
and the construction costs. So this is different from the Vineyards
contract where, in fact, we subsidized all of the construction costs.
This is in our favor relative to splitting the design and the
construction cost up to a certain amount. So that's one element of
this agreement that the county needs to consider.
The other element is that from a maintenance perspective
we utilized a countywide maintenance-type contract. The developer has
agreed to maintain it for a one-year period, and then we would pick up
the maintenance of that.
So those are the two elements that, in fact, make this
somewhat different than Vineyards. And, yes, the staff would like to
be consistent from a policy standpoint. But in -- in fact, there are
advantages to both of them. The advantage to Vineyards is in regards
to long-term maintenance. The advantage of this one is in terms of
the up-front construction cost.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me tell you one other
concern I have too, is we're looking up front at $140,000 to the
county. We have a list of bike paths with 23 or 25 different bike
paths that the list this year, I think, was the first year we've
actually seen some changes in that. It had remained roughly unchanged
in three or four years. We've had limited ability to do that, and it
has always been a funding shortfall. It seems to me our first
priority by law is health, safety, and welfare. And sidewalks and
bike paths in places where we have already for three or four years
established that they are needed, they are near schools where children
are traveling, et cetera, should be and, in my mind, are a higher
priority than beautification. And beautification certainly adds to
the ambience of our community, and I don't complain about that, but I
look here at the funding sources, and we're looking some at general
fund reserves. And if we're getting into the general fund, it seems
as though we ought to be taking care of health, safety, and welfare
issues that have been sitting for three years before we get into the
extras, the beautification.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to hold off for a
minute. I'm looking at something.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there other discussion? We
have a motion and a second, I believe; is that correct? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought we did. Is there
further discussion on the item? I'll call the question. All those in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes 4 to 1,
Commissioner Constantine being in the opposition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We might add -- Commissioner, the
point you raised is a very valid point regarding balancing between
beautification and bike paths and Lord knows whatever else might be
out there on our plate that we have not met as fully as we would
like. That's a prioritization that maybe this board needs to address
a little more fully, because I think there are a lot of things that we
can also throw in there and say, well, we'd rather do A than B. And
to be honest with you, I don't have a grasp of all of those things.
That may be a substantial workshop item at some point in the future.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to do that. I wish
our action today had been to hold off on that until we had a chance to
weigh those, but I'm sure there is still a full plate of items we can
look at, so I'd like to.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, you had more?
MR. ARCHIBALD: For the board's information, there will
be an agenda item on bike paths next week before the recess, so that
would be coming up very quickly.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What time frame do you have for
bringing forward the countywide maintenance program?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I'll be coming back with another report
to the board most likely in July. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In July?
MR. ARCHIBALD: And then depending upon the direction
from the board in July, we may or may not follow through with creating
documents and going through a public hearing process.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Item #883
REPORT AND RECOHMENDATION OF VACATING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE NORTH
END OF LAKELAND AVENUE EXTENSION - STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE AGENDA
ITEM
Next item on the agenda is 8-B-3, a reporting
recommendation on vacating road right of way, Lakeland extension. Mr.
Archibald.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, this agenda item 8-B-3
involves the consideration of vacating a portion of the northern
extension of Lakeland Avenue north of the Willoughby Acres subdivision
back to a property owner who had provided a dedication back in 1980, I
believe. The particular agenda item, I believe, was one in which the
board wanted staff to do two things; provide some background
information, as we've attempted to do in the agenda item, and then
provide a recommendation. And what we're looking at is the request by
the applicant of vacating the right of way with or without some kind
of reservation. And the staff -- and the agenda item is outlined on
page 2, roughly four different scenarios to where, contrary to what
the landowner may be requesting, he's requesting that we give the land
back and let him have full rights to access. And since there's many
property owners and many parcels of land that are subject to the use
of this existing roadway, staff would concur that we, in fact, can
vacate that. But we would recommend, as we've outlined, vacating it
subject to an easement of one kind or another. And, again, in the
agenda packet we've outlined four different options.
The one that we recommended, what we referred to as 4-A,
a quitclaim deed back to the property owner in exchange for a public
right-of-way easement. And, again, the reason for the easement is to
assure that those property owners to the north continue to have legal
access, and by such action of the board no liability is being created
against the county for, in fact, removing access that currently
exists.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I -- I've met with
the property owners on this parcel of land to the north of Willoughby
acres. And on the right-of-way easement -- I believe it's on page 12
of the package we've been given -- their objection -- and I can
understand what they're saying -- is the phrase in here to have and to
hold the same unto said grantee, its successors, and assigns, together
with the right to enter upon said lands and excavate and take
materials from same and construct and maintain a public right of way
thereon. How is that any different from if we didn't give them the
land back? We would still be able to build a public road over their
private land, and we would wind up in the same situation we are at
Lely Barefoot, a public road over a private easement -- or a public
road over a private easement in that case.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's a legal question
on what's the difference between an easement and an outright
conveyance. It's a law school exam question.
MR. CUYLER: I think -- well, the -- the obvious answer
is if we give them the property back and hold -- hold -- reserve
nothing unto ourselves in terms of an easement or any other right to
go on the property or to construct on the property, it's their
property. If and when we ever wanted to construct a roadway, we would
need to condemn that or, again, seek the property rights. The way
that's addressed right now, it's exactly as Commissioner Matthews
said, and that is we can go in and construct a road on that property,
but that's all we can do. I mean our -- our ability under this is to
go in and construct and maintain a public right of way. We can't go
in and do another governmental function or otherwise trespass on their
property.
The real concern, I think, that staff has had in the
past -- and they've discussed this with our office to some extent --
is that the property was given to us in contemplation of some things
happening that never did happen. But there are other property owners,
and staff was very concerned that if we just turned this property
back, that there would be some ramifications. And either -- those
property owners further north would come and knock on your door and
say something's happened,. We can't get to our property. So I think
staff is in a little bit of a, you know, tough spot with regard to
exactly the best way to handle this, and I think they've determined
that they want the property to go back. But if and when we do
construct a road, we have the ability to go ahead and do that. And I
assume the people to the north would then say, well, we can travel
over that easement area because it's a governmental easement for the
sole purpose of ingress and egress. We can't do anything else there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What was the status of access
prior to -- I believe the quitclaim deed was signed in 1984. What was
the status of access to these properties to the north in 19847
MR. CUYLER: I assume it was under the category of
undefined. I think it was a way of necessity or a statutory
ingress-egress. No, I don't think anyone ever went to court and had
their rights declared. I think that was just the common access and --
and as an extension of the platted roadway, that's where everyone went
in order to get back to their property.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The two parcels of land between
Lakeland Avenue and these parcels of land that were quitclaimed to the
county, what's the status of access over those lands?
MR. CUYLER: Same as the question that you just asked.
I assume they are, as everything was in 1983, prior to any transfers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There is a private road there at
this point.
MR. CUYLER: There is a roadway, and that is private
land. Whether or not the people to the north have access or have
other legal rights, we really haven't delved into. We find nothing of
record that would establish that, but it's a common way of use, and
I'm sure that they would claim a right of ingress and egress through
there. If your question is on those first few parcels, do they still
have a potential problem, the answer is yes. They still have a
potential problem on those first few parcels.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, for my benefit -- and I'm
not an attorney -- would you explain to me the difference between each
of these four options, what -- what the county would be doing and what
effect that would have on the property to the north, and what effects
it would have on the property owner once the property's returned?
MR. CUYLER: George, which page were you referring to --
MR. ARCHIBALD: Page 2 at the very top. We outlined
four basic quitclaim deeds. There's an exhibit on page 3 that
provides you some indication of the rights of all the different owners
in regards to either existing easements or rights of way that had, in
fact, been deeded. That exhibit shows you by the dotted line certain
easements that exist and the quitclaim deeds that are part of your
agenda item. The deeds themselves are all basically the same. The
difference is in the easements, whether those easements are public or
private or whether they're strictly for public access or they reserve
access. And that's basically the differences, what the county is
reserving in behalf of all the owners to the north that, in fact, have
a right of access, either because of dedication or because of a
prescriptive right or prescriptive use. There's homes to the north
that have built that -- built segments of the roadway and, in fact,
been in place for more than 20 years to meet a prescriptive
requirement. It would be up to those property owners to create that
right. The county has, I don't believe, any standing to create those
rights north of the existing dedication.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But if the houses have -- those
homes have been there more than 20 years, and the quitclaim deeds were
signed only 11 years ago, then those property owners had rights prior
to these quitclaim deeds being signed. And from what the property
owners involved in this have talked to me about, is a return of their
property in the same condition and with the same provisions placed
upon it as existed before they quitclaimed it. So it would seem to me
the property owners would have the same -- the property owners to the
north would have the same access that they had then. Commissioner
MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aren't we concerned that in the
future -- it appears just from the sketch that's on the third page
that this is potentially a logical extension of a county road in the
future, that if we give this back, is it in our plan to eventually
then want -- we would have to buy it back from them again if we don't
reserve some sort of access rights? Because I mean this looks like a
logical extension of the road in the future connecting these two pink
pieces, so I'm concerned that -- that if we give it back, we're going
to have to pay for it and get it later in the future when we want to
connect those two roads.
MR. ARCHIBALD: In fact, you're correct. Those property
owners that are reflected on the pink portion of that exhibit, those
property owners are the ones at risk. Those are the ones that haven't
had the ability to address this issue because, in fact, there has not
been a vacation petition and public hearing and public meeting to give
them that opportunity, but they have talked to us on the phone. And
they've expressed the concern that ultimately they want Lakeland
extended. So at some future point in time, we're all following the
premise that that will become a roadway that all those parcels will
end up participating in the cost of. And if we end up vacating or
giving something back, we're, in fact, forcing those owners to correct
that by buying back rights or recreating rights that are currently
existing and contrary to their needs for access in the future. That's
the dilemma that we're considering.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Not on this, no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not on this one.
By way of some background -- let me just say one more
thing on this by way of background. And that is in 1980, 66 percent
of the landowners along this roadway petitioned the county to build a
public road. And in 1984 -- it took three and a half years --
quitclaim deeds were sent to the property owners along the right of
way. And five of the property owners signed the quitclaim deeds, five
or four -- four signed these deeds, and two of them refused to sign
them. In 1985 or '86, if my memory serves me correctly on what I
read, the county notified the five property owners that signed the
deeds that the project had been abandoned because the two property
owners to the south would not sign the deeds. And these property
owners have been since that time for ten years now trying to regain
ownership of property that they gifted. They didn't -- they did not
get paid for it. They gifted to the county for the purpose of
building a public right of way that the county abandoned, and they
have been since that time trying to get their property back.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, there's a very important element
in that that needs to be explained. And that is that, in fact, back
in the early '80s when this was considered as a petition project, in
fact, staff had to go back to the property owners and indicate to them
that we have the alternative of condemning that land at your expense
or allowing you to continue to use it as you're currently using it. I
don't have a record of it, but I'm fairly sure that the reason that
the project was abandoned is that the cost of acquisition far exceeded
the cost of road construction, and those people in that location were
not willing to incur that cost, nor should they really for something
that they're using. So it's a matter of waiting until such time as
either of those owners decides they want to develop their property or
build on it or create a roadway that would, in fact, meet
requirements.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ken, this is probably a question
for you. Would -- even -- even if we want to consider the possibility
of giving these people their property back, is the appropriate -- it
seems to me that the appropriate action to take would be a vacation
public hearing, so -- because if we just say today we're going to give
it back, then there are going to be objections from people who didn't
have an opportunity to be heard because they weren't provided notice.
So -- so it seems to me that if the board wants to pursue this
further, it ought to be through directing the property owners to apply
for a vacation.
MR. CUYLER: We talked about whether that was necessary
or not, and I sort of came down on the same side you just did, and
that is even if it's not absolutely required, if there's any question,
that's probably the best way to handle it just to make sure everybody
gets full of everything.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because otherwise the balance of
the property owners aren't going to have their opportunity to be
heard, so we don't know. We don't have enough information. So I
don't know what the -- what the appropriate procedure is, Madam
Chairman. But if it's appropriate to move to continue or table or --
or somehow postpone this pending a public hearing with notice and
opportunity for the balance of the property owners to be heard, that's
what I would like --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I certainly don't object to
hearing from the balance of the property owners that -- that might be
affected, but -- but I do ask each of my colleagues to keep in mind
that this property was given for a specific purpose that the county
abandoned. And whether they -- whether we intend as a -- as a
government to proceed in the future, we're waiting -- we're waiting
for other property owners to maybe, maybe never, some day tell us that
they want to develop the property to the north. And -- and I'm -- I
just don't feel that it's fair that we deprive these property owners
of their property that they gave for a specific purpose and we did not
follow through with.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm in agreement with both of
you. It's not appropriate if they were under the impression it was
for a specific purpose and we haven't fulfilled that. But I do think
we need to have a public hearing in order to make any decision.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I'll make a motion that we
-- I don't know whether we need to table it and set a date or
continue an item indefinitely, but I'll make -- Mr. Cuyler, you want
to help me?
MR. CUYLER: You can give direction to staff to do
whatever is necessary to bring it back to you in that form, and
they'll pick a date and bring it back.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we direct
staff to bring this back as a publicly advertised hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
bring this back as a publicly advertised hearing. Since there was no
motion on the table, we don't -- don't need to table the existing
motion.
There's no further discussion, I'll call the question.
All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, the motion passes 5 to 0. Then we
will hear this on a regularly advertised public hearing later this
summer. Thank you.
Why don't we take a break for 10 minutes until quarter
of.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8C1
SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS OF THE
REGISTRY RESORT OF NAPLES, INC. (AUO) - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting for June 13th, 1995.
The next item on the agenda is item 8-C-1,
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
settlement documents with the unit owners of the Registry Hotel. Mr.
Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator. As the board is well familiar,
the AUO, or the Association of Unit Owners of the Registry Resort of
Naples, Inc., have filed two claims back in Hay of 1994 against the
county. One regarded generator and fuel costs, and the other was an
attempt to recover escrowed funds which had been escrowed by AUO to
the county for the construction of a third pod on that boardwalk.
In response the county also filed a counterclaim. The
original two claims by the AUO were valued today because of
accumulated interest and attorney fees at approximately $306,000. The
one counterclaim from the county is valued at approximately $30,000.
To date there has been one summary judgment hearing which was filed by
the AUO and was not awarded. We, on the other hand, have prepared a
summary judgment motion of our own, which we have not as yet filed,
but instead have before you a settlement agreement.
The agreement as it's proposed would actually settle
with the AUO by paying them a lump-sum amount of $100,000 in return
for which all of the suits would be dismissed with prejudice, and each
party would be responsible for its own attorney's fees. Unfortunately
in the executive summary the -- and I think this resulted in the
newspaper article -- the funding source is incorrectly noted in the
fiscal impact statement. The funding source being proposed here is
not 001. It is not general fund. It is actually fund 670. That fund
is the location where the AUO original escrow monies are located.
In essence, what we are proposing to the board is that
we would settle this lawsuit by paying the AUO with monies that were
escrowed by the AUO originally. The AUO paid us $75,000 in an
original escrow. Due to the magic of compound interest, that amount
is now $123,000. So what we are proposing is that we pay them
$100,000 basically of their own money and retain $23,000 of what is
then accumulated interest over that time, and in return for that
everybody walks away from the suits that are outstanding.
With that, the staff and the county attorney's office
have negotiated this agreement and are standing here recommending its
approval to you today. And I'm available to answer any questions that
you might have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Being none,
is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's motion and a second to
approve the settlement agreement. Very good. No conversation on it.
I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Item #SH1
RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT FOR THE ENCLOSING
OF AN EXISTING DITCH NEAR THE LANDMARK ESTATES AND IMPERIAL GOLF COURSE
DEVELOPMENTS - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED BASED ON FOUR ELEMENTS
Next item on the agenda is under the county manager's
report, 8-H-l, a recommendation to approve a right-of-way agreement
with Florida Power and light.
MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record Tom Conrecode of your capital projects office. And I'm here to
talk to you this morning about a specific agreement with Florida Power
and Light to utilize a portion of their right of way for purposes of
drainage conveyance to serve a series of developments along that
particular corridor.
The -- in Hay 1989 FP&L notified the county that they
considered the open-ditch system of drainage within their right of way
detrimental to the safe operation of their transmission lines and
demanded that the county relocate outside of the right of way. At
that point the county pursued options to locate outside of the right
of way, couldn't acquire all of the necessary right of way to do the
project that way, and instead went back to FP&L and tried to negotiate
an agreement where we could enclose the existing ditch. That's, in
essence, what you have before you today.
Our staff's recommendation is to enter into the
agreement with FP&L to enclose the existing ditch and complete the
drainage as necessary. In the event the county chooses not to do that
and not to enter into FP&L's agreement, we will face almost certain
legal defeat if the item is taken to court.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you certain?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Almost certain defeat, my
goodness. What about the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Hiss Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Somebody says certain legal
defeat, and Pam speaks up. Go figure.
Two questions. I want to kind of set the stage here so
there's no confusion between some recent board action regarding
drainage and this. If we were allowed to go in and maintain this
ditch, there wouldn't be a problem here today; is that correct? MR. CONRECODE: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we don't have a drainage
function problem if we're allowed to maintain it. The problem is
we're not allowed it, and that's created a function problem for
Imperial and Landmark and the Abbey and those other that eventually
feed into it; is that correct? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So basically FP&L is the big, bad
bogeyman. We only have a few options on how to fix this, and what
you're recommending is closure. My question then is -- you have under
project portion of fiscal impact you have a cost estimate and
available funding. What is the source of that available funding?
MR. CONRECODE: It's fund 325 which is the water
management capital funds.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And these are amounts that have
been contributed by these developments into that fund so --
MR. CONRECODE: Those are ad valorem sources.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ad valorem. Okay. So this is
countywide.
MR. CONRECODE: It's part of the one mill cap or half
mill cap fund, and it's the annual allocation. The shortfall in
funding of $92,800 is budgeted for -- is currently in your budget for
next fiscal year and would be the additional funding needed to
complete the project. If the board so directs today, we would
complete design and permitting now in order to kick this project off
October 1st.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So today's -- if we approve this
today, it really gets us to the next step, but it can't be completed
unless the board approves the 92,000 inclusion in the budget that's up
next year.
MR. CONRECODE: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
further discussion on this?
Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
Actually he just addressed my
Okay. Are there -- is there
HR. CUYLER: There's one public speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One speak are?
MR. CUYLER: Hiss Straton.
MS. STRATON: Thank you very much. Chris Straton
representing Landmark Estates. And the only reason I come before you
today is, one, is to share accolades for staff. Historically they
have worked very well with us to address the problem of the drainage
and to get it cleaned out and -- and it's a functioning system
currently.
My concern is when the drain is closed up, is -- because
of the unique nature of being a mobile home park where we own our
homes but do not own the property, we are not normally notified of any
activities within the general area. And the pipe that's going to be
installed has had certain assumptions put to bear in terms of the use
of the land and the surrounding area and who will be discharging and
how much they'll be discharging into it. As you're aware, sometimes
those assumptions change depending upon what the actual development
is.
So my long-winded request to you is to set up a
mechanism so that the Landmark Estates Homeowners Association can be
notified of any activity that's occurring in that area that would be
affecting discharge into that particular drain. And we would make a
similar request to other permitting agencies so that we have -- and
the reason I bring this up is there was -- there was a problem of
trying to find out what the original drainage plans were, and things
sort of got lost and things, you know, have all been taken care of.
But we just want to make sure that we have an opportunity to keep
insuring that the drainage system that's currently functioning
continues to function so -- so that's the purpose --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Chris, I thought you were that
vehicle. I thought you would tell them.
MS. STRATON: Well, just in case I'm on vacation and
miss that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if we have a
mechanism that can effectively do that, because this -- this is going
to -- I mean this line goes on up past Landmark to currently vacant
properties. I assume the design takes into account development of
those properties at some time, so we aren't coming back and digging it
up and rebuilding it.
MR. CONRECODE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if we have a
mechanism to say that when something happens up here that this
community is flagged. I don't think we do that anywhere else in the
county, and I'm not sure how we would do it, to be honest, Chris.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, in this particular case we would
be happy to just notify them over the next six months with every step
along the way what we're doing permitting-wise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But what you're asking is anyone
who develops or contributes to this system, you would like Landmark
homeowners --
MS. STRATON: I met with Robert Wiley and went through
the actual plans. And basically what he thinks will happen is the
pipe, the closed end of the pipe, will really be at the Landmark
outfall. And so his assumptions that are key are the development to
the east of the outfall, and right now that's apparently zoned
agriculture. So he looked at what the zoning might allow. And then
anything with respect to the Livingston Road extension, he assumed
that there would be no water coming into that outfall, and so those
are the two specific items.
MR. CONRECODE: No difference in outfall,
predevelopment, post-development. MS. STRATON: Right.
MR. CONRECODE: And that's what's currently required by
the water management district and by our own permitting process so
that there's no net difference.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the property to the east were
to be developed, the 300-foot notification rule would only catch a
small portion of the properties in Landmark, and that notice would go
to the one singular property owner which controls the property; is
that correct?
MR. CONRECODE: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And your question is how do we
get it to the homeowners from there? MS. STRATON: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a pretty common problem
throughout the county. Can I ask how we -- and I guess I'm asking the
three veterans up here how we've addressed that in the past.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think we much have except
to ask for special notifications.
MR. CONRECODE: Or through the public notice of an item
coming before the board or advertised public hearing. Those are
typically the other ways that go out.
MS. MAC'KIE: Isn't posting a notice --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They are posted with the yellow
signs of future action, so the adjacent property owners would see
that. I don't -- I don't know where to go from there, Chris, to be
honest.
MS. STRATON: Okay. Well, at least we were able -- you
know, we were notified this time. But just going forward, you know,
I'm sure staff will continue to do us -- if there's no way that we can
be formally notified in the -- in the future, I certainly understand
so -- but I thought it was worth a try.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have a residents'
association there?
MS. STRATON: Yes, we do. We're incorporated, so we are
a legal entity.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But you don't own any of the
property --
MS. STRATON: No, we do not. And that's why, you know
-- we have a good rapport with our -- with the manager currently.
But, again, just in case, you know, she goes on vacation and something
comes up, we thought it would be important.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I can say for the next
three and a half years you'll get noticed.
MS. STRATON: Thank you very much. That's good enough.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very good. You'll take care of
it. That's fine.
Is there further discussion on this item? Is there a
motion?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve staff's
recommendation. Is there an option number on that, Mr. Conrecode, or
it's just a singular recommendation?
MR. CONRECODE: It's one recommendation with four parts.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And you request inclusion
of all four parts to that recommendation? MR. CONRECODE: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll make a motion that we
approve based on staff's recommendation including the four elements
referenced by Mr. Conrecode.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
MR. CONRECODE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Conrecode.
Item #8H2
REQUEST TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FILH
COHMISSION OFFICE - APPROVED; WITHHOLD FUNDING UNTIL PLAN IS APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is 8-H-2, a request to consider
additional information on the film commission.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel
in the budget office. This item was reviewed by the board in Hay, the
beginning of Hay, requesting $50,400 for a film commission to be
funded with tourist development tax revenues. At that time the board
had requested additional information, possible coordination with Lee
County in this venture. Mr. Ayres has presented a revised budget to
you. It's in your agenda package.
I just wanted to point out the comparison of the two
budgets. The first budget I believe was for 12 months. The revised
budget that we have is a six-month budget and includes $25,000 for a
marketing brochure which was not included in the first -- first
budget. I believe Mr. Ayres is here to answer any questions you might
have, or I will be glad to.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First I want to apologize.
We had continued this for one week so Beverly Fox from the Lee County
film office could be here. She is in California. They had an
opportunity to come up having directly to do with the film industry,
and so she's in California today trying to nail down a deal on behalf
of their film commission.
However, you may recall there was some enthusiasm when I
mentioned this at our joint meeting. I've had an opportunity of
talking with Dick Stillwell, the county manager up there, since and
also with two of the commissioners, and they are, indeed, anxious to
work together. I've also met with Mr. Ayres and the proponents of our
project.
I would suggest the following. This is not what we'd --
what we'd call an emergency item or an urgent item. I think all five
of us, from what I've either seen, heard, or read would like to
encourage the film industry in Collier County. But we don't have a
deadline by which we need to make a final decision on how to do that.
What I would suggest is, since there is some encouragement from Lee
County to do some things together, anyway -- I think Mr. Ayres will
acknowledge that there may be some things we can do together, and I'd
suggest that we approve today the concept of a film commission. But
prior to committing funds to it, we form some sort of formal group to
sit down or semiformal group to sit down with Lee and try to define
exactly what areas we can do together and what areas we may need to do
on our own and then bring that back with a revised budget, because
some of those things we may do together. We may still spend as much
and end up with twice as good of a product if we do it together. But
I think we ought to sit down and make sure we know where we're headed
with them prior to approving an actual fund amount.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess, you know, I could wait
and hear from Mr. Ayres. But I'm afraid the tail's wagging the dog
and that Collier County should establish its office, and then we
should direct it or request that they work with the Lee County office,
and that this is already losing steam, and people are wearing down in
their efforts to do something that they thought would be met with
great enthusiasm and that we need to move forward and trust that they
will work with Lee County where appropriate, because why wouldn't
they. So for what it's worth, that's where I still stand.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there other comment?
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two elements come to mind, and
I'll just say them before Mr. Ayres gets started, because he may
address them. The idea of approving a concept, I think all of us want
to look at this further, and we're hoping to get the information today
to -- to make at least a preliminary decision, but correct me if I'm
wrong, the -- this is supposed to be or proposed to be funded out of
category C, TDC tax funds. I guess I'm not -- MS. GANSEL: It would be category B.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Because it says
category C right here, and I had a problem with that. So category B
makes a little more sense, a lot more sense actually.
The second thing is I think it's quite obvious by what's
been presented to us that under marketing, step one, location
marketing brochures is obviously something that can be done as a
southwest Florida joint venture, in other words, to pique the
interest. When we get into production guides and that kind of thing,
that becomes localized, in my opinion. And I would also like the
TDC's input on this. It just seems to me that that would be a
valuable element. So rather than this coming back to the board again
and again without having TDC input, can we also request a parallel
course that TDC take a look at it and make recommendations, because I
think that's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Excuse me.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
looking at.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
MAke recommendations for what?
Well, the same thing we're
The TDC already approved this.
A long time ago.
Several months ago they approved
Okay. I'm looking at final form
and fashion. Mr. Ayres, is this different from what the TDC has
looked at?
MR. AYRES: My name is John Ayres. I'm the chairman of
the EDC Film Commission. We presented to the TDC -- I'm going to -- I
don't recall the exact date, but I'm going to say it's a good four or
five months ago --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: April, I believe.
MR. AYRES: -- that we put the film commission together,
and we had a budget that you had for the last one. And it was not as
specific as this one. And our intent -- my intent certainly was
always to go back to the TDC with a more refined budget. So when I
stood before you some weeks back, my intent was to get your approval
and then to go back and do the legwork like we have done on other
issues similar to the disaster recovery program or whatever.
You approved the funding for the disaster recovery
program, and I have to tell you that even today you don't know and I
don't know what it's going to end up costing us, because we haven't
gotten that far yet. So, again, I guess I stand before you today
hoping that we can get this -- this issue off of the -- the
question-mark department and into the yes, go forward. And then what
we would do is come back to the TDC. We'd certainly -- just as we got
together with -- Commissioner Constantine and I had a conversation
with Beverly Fox as well. Our intent is to fully look at this thing
to determine where and -- and what is logical and practical for our
best interests and -- and then to further refine this budget. So the
TDC did approve moving forward on this, and I guess that's what I'm
here for your approval on as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, let me point out, we
don't have a deadline. I don't know that we're losing steam. I don't
think John would suggest we're losing steam. I know he and his folks
have been active, and that's why I'm suggesting that conceptually we
approve this. But as far as the items we can do together,
Commissioner Hancock, you mentioned production guide. In fact, the
Lee County production guide features sections on Naples, and that
features all of the various services that anyone in the film industry
might need. Obviously in a county of 180,000 people we don't
necessarily have a broad variety here. So we would borrow from Lee
and from elsewhere as well. So that would not necessarily be
localized. But if you look at what Lee has put together at this
point, their promotional video borrowed heavily from footage from
Collier County. Their brochure does. Their production guides do, and
my concern -- I don't have any question that the intent is to do that,
but the point is it may change what our budget is once those
discussions have taken place.
And secondarily, if you go back and look at how this is
being proposed, we have no control over that person or their duties
once we've approved this. It's an EDC employee, not a county
employee. So I don't think John is going to tell us to pound sand,
but theoretically they could say that. Then, of course, that would be
short-sighted for next year. But I don't want to see us be
short-sighted and just say, well, we want a film commission. We got
to have it today, and we've got to approve this now. I think we all
want to do this, and I think we all want to encourage the industry,
but I think we'll know better exactly what the budget will be after
we've talked with Lee and what areas we can share after we've talked
with Lee. And I'd like to define that rather than try to tell the EDC
after the fact what it's going to be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, everybody keeps saying we
all want to do this. I'm not so sure that's true. I have quite a
concern about using public funds, even tourist tax dollars, to fund a
private organization's film commission. I think that's pretty much
what Commissioner Constantine just said. That causes me quite a deal
of concern to have county funds pay the salary of -- of -- of someone
in a private organization. So I don't know that the characterization
that we all want to see this go forward is quite correct at this
point. I have some serious questions that need to be answered first.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll pass.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You'll pass?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I feel like I would like to
see this move forward today. I think that there really ought to be a
way that we can adequately safeguard the work that the employee does
on the film commission. I guess -- Miss Gansel, let me ask you a few
questions. If we were to approve this budget today, do you as the
liaison for the TDC ask the finance office to issue a check to the EDC
for $50,400 or whatever it is?
MS. GANSEL: It would be on a reimbursable basis.
Sometimes either they have -- have paid the employee. We would be
able to see work that has been done, or they would provide us with
invoices. We would not just grant $50,400.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I thought.
MS. GANSEL: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you would set up adequate
guidelines wanting to see the productivity of what this person does on
a month-to-month basis, and then we continue to fund a portion of this
person's salary based on the productivity.
MS. GANSEL: And -- and we could put this in the
contract to have this come forward to the board. Whatever assurances,
additional assurances that you would like, we can certainly provide
that in the contract.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see. That's a good idea.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There seems to be kind of a
pattern developing with TDC funds that I'm not terribly comfortable
with. The pattern starts with -- Miss Daniels brought forth a
proposal that on the surface met criteria and fell apart in the
details. We recently approved an expenditure for the Intellinet, and
the details are things we haven't seen. We seem to be doing things a
little backwards in these -- these situations in that we give some
form of a conceptual approval and then ask for the details later.
Before we go funding an amount of $50,400, I want to
know really what it is we are getting for that. I need more specifics
and more details on what the expense includes or doesn't include,
because I really feel that these conceptual approvals are coming back
and biting us on the back side. And I'm uncomfortable doing it. We
don't do it at home. We don't say, yeah, go out and spend $5,000 on
something without knowing what it is. So I would like -- okay, at the
Norris home they do that but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only for golf equipment.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'm not ready today to commit
to $50,400 of category B funds for the simple reason I don't know what
we're getting. And that may sound trite, but I think it's at least a
prudent position, so I would like to see a little more into details of
this matter.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like to comment that at
least in the Matthews home we do agree to go out and investigate what
something is going to cost and then decide if we're going to commit
the money to it. And I think that's what Mr. Ayres --
MR. AYRES: Madam Chairman, I think it would malign the
committee that's been involved in this for some period of time to say
that we don't know what this is going to cost. The injection of Lee
County into this formula is, in fact, what has caused us to not know
what it's going to cost. I have talked to more experts in this
industry than I know as it relates to these marketing expenses, which
is what I've done for the last 25 years. I know what a video's going
to cost for five minutes within certain parameters, and I'm going to
hold them to it. I know what the production brochure is going to
cost. This isn't something that we just -- you know, we sat around in
five minutes, and we threw it out and typed it up. There's been a lot
of discussion and a lot of commitment to making this thing happen.
And I -- you know, I wouldnlt say that our group is
becoming disillusioned, but I will tell you that the constant coming
back and forth is something that -- that I donlt feel is necessary.
You donlt do it with the Tourist Development Council. You donlt do it
with -- letls talk about the issue of providing funding for an
employee in the private sector. You do that right now with the Naples
Area Tourism Bureau, a not-for-profit organization, just like the
EDC. And you do it now with the Marco Island Visitors and Convention
Bureau.
Welre not -- welre not running an independent thing
here. Welre running something for the benefit of Collier County. And
there are a lot of people involved in this thing that are trying to
generate dollars coming into this county that donlt come in today.
Speaking for myself, thatls my only -- I mean I -- I have no other
real driving force behind this except that I thought it was something
that -- that the people wanted. I thought it was something that would
be good for the community, and -- and the members of our -- of our
committee have felt that way as well. I would never expect that we
shouldnlt look into what Lee County can bring to the dance. I would
never expect that we shouldnlt look at all kinds of things. But being
on the board of the Naples Area Accommodations Association, I can tell
you welre looking at stuff all the time as we prepare an annual
budget. And welre looking at what makes the best sense to spend the
tourism dollars. And I just -- especially when you look at this as
being category B funding and because Iive been involved in this
process since the beginning of the -- of the TDC, I donlt see any
difference between the film commission having some allocation of
dollars or your approval today to move forward and come up with the
ultimate plan. I think that just makes good sense. And maybe what
welve done here is welve -- welve put this $50,000 out there as the --
you know, as the whereforeall, and maybe it isnlt. Maybe itls
$100,000.
My recommendation would be that you approve the film
commission, which is, in fact, why Iim here, and then let the film
commission get together. Let us put together continued efforts to
come up with the right plan and then come back to the TDC, where I
believe it should be, to take a look at that plan just as they
approved the plans for the Naples Area Tourism Bureau and for Marco
Island. And then subsequently if it comes to you and you donlt like
it, you always have the opportunity to say we didnlt like it. But I
would hate to walk away from you today not having agreed that we will
have a film commission and that the film commission should now take
the initiative to make sure we do whatls right --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, John, donlt take
offense. Iim not going to take the time to draw the differences out
between the tourism bureau and this, because there are, but itls not
important. Donlt take offense. Itls -- you know, welre spending --
yes, itls tourist tax dollars, but I think you would be the first one
to step up and say, gosh, make sure you always spend tourist tax
dollars appropriately. $50,000 is a lot of money. Anytime welre
spending any type of money and we have questions, I would hope that
each of us would stop and pause for that.
We talked about the example of in households how you
spend money and such. If I need a new dishwasher, I may know -- and,
as you say, you know roughly what it would cost. I may know I can
afford roughly $500 for a dishwasher, and there are any number of
models out there for that. But I'm not going to write that check
until I go out and look at those models and look at what features are
on them and know who I'm buying it from and if there's any other way
to do it. I think that's all we're asking here. MR. AYRES: Total agreement with you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion we
approve the film commission, however, withhold the $50,000 for the
time being in lieu of a meeting between perhaps Mr. Ayres representing
us and the county manager of Lee County, maybe a representative of
their TDC, obviously a commissioner up there interested, and Miss Fox
and sit down and come up with what areas we have in common, because I
do think the guidebook, as it's drawn right now -- it was the example
made earlier -- breaks down by county by area.
We may very well be able to print one single printing
and share the use of those. If we have a promotional video-type
thing, again, we may be able to promote one thing. What I had said to
John and the others in our meeting outside of this forum was that when
it comes down to an actual project, obviously we would prefer to have
them stay on this side of the line and stay in one of our hotels and
so on. However, when we are in Las Vegas or California or anywhere
else at a trade show, and we have little Collier County competing with
Miami and Tampa and Orlando, and you look at the production guides and
the production services that are available in those communities, if
you try to limit ourselves to the services that we have available in
our little county of 180,000 people, we simply cannot compete. But if
we do that as a region, we can make that initial attraction and that
initial hook together as southwest Florida. Once they've expressed an
interest in southwest Florida and come down here, I'm sure there will
be from time to time some scrapping between Lee and ourselves on the
final details with any contract. But I think that initial interest
will be expressed in southwest Florida.
And with that I'm going to make, again, the motion to
approve the film commission, however, withhold the fifty until said
time that John and representatives can sit down with the Lee
representatives as I outlined and come back with a formula appropriate
to sharing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I ask the motion maker to
revise that to say that -- approve the commission and withhold any
funding until such time as we see a plan?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Yes, I will.
MR. DORRILL: We do have one additional speaker beyond
Mr. Ayres.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner
Mac'Kie, you had something you wanted to add as well?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm just getting more
confused as we go on. Wouldn't the normal process be that if -- if we
approved the request today, which is for the -- to establish a film
commission office and to fund it with tourist development tax revenues
not to exceed $50,400? Is that what you're asking for us to do
today?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
approve --
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. AYRES:
No, that's not. The motion is to
Not the motion, the request from
I'm sorry.
I think that -- that what -- what we do know
is that between now and December we need to create certain awareness
pieces, be they videos, be they brochures. And so really all we tried
to do in this was determine what it would cost.
Now, if Lee County -- as I see it, if Lee County joins
us more and more in the plan, well, then the cost will go down. So I
guess what I'm saying is, I don't see the cost going up. So if, in
fact, you were to give us a horizon of $50,000, and then as a
committee we go and meet with Lee County and see, just like we do in
business every day and just like you do at home, you know, we're going
to see if we can -- we're going to spend as little as we can, because
it's certainly to our advantage to do that. But, yes, that would be
my perspective.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like there's a way here
that we're so close to doing exactly what the need to -- you know,
with all due respect, I think they are losing steam. I think they've
been here, and they're getting beaten down when they've been trying to
do this since April and, you know, they've got businesses to run too.
But it seems to me that -- that we -- in the normal course, if we vote
today to establish the film commission office and to fund it in
accordance with the budget that they will bring back to us, after
doing whatever they think is appropriate, including liaisoning with
the Lee County office, is that what your motion -- I'm trying to
decide if I can support the motion. If that's your motion, then,
sure, I think that's what they're asking.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The motion withholds all funding
for the time being.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I guess I'm asking if the
motion could -- you know, if what we're saying is we're going to
establish a film commission office, and we will fund it as they bring
us back a budget that is more detailed that includes Lee County --
MR. AYRES: If I may, I think I like that part better
perhaps even than $50,000 horizon or whatever, that once we pull this
plan together, that you'll fund the film office. I think that -- you
know, that would be very appropriate and certainly -- certainly allow
us to move forward knowing that -- that, you know, you're on -- we're
launched. We're not sure where we're going yet --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume we get to agree with
the plan?
MR. AYRES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: I just wanted to point out whenever we've
come forward to request money with any TDC funding, we then follow it
up with a contract, and no money is disbursed prior to that contract
being signed by both parties with the particulars and the applications
attached to that contract. So even if you approved the money today,
we would be coming forward with a contract identifying the specifics
and the responsibilities of both parties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is where I think we've lost
perspective here, because if we think they're asking us that if we
approve their request they would get a check for $50,400 by the end of
the day, that's not what anybody is asking for. I really just want to
put a positive spin on the motion, that if we are approving the
establishment of the film commission office, then we're asking them to
submit a budget for tourist tax funds that we can either approve or
disapprove in the future.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like to think we have a
positive spin. I think a negative spin would be, John, great idea.
Sorry, we're not going to do it. We don't have any interest. Thank
you and good-bye. That would be a very negative spin to me.
A positive spin is let's establish the film office, and
we have some intention of funding when we come back with a particular
plan including Lee County as part of it in mind. I think that is
positive. We're moving forward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I came here today expecting to
see what the product -- you know, Miss Fox was going to come. We were
going to see a presentation, get an idea of what we were spending
money on. She couldn't make it. I have a budget detail of five
items. It's half a page. I have a graph on the back showing some
estimated amount. It's not enough information. So, yes, I think
we're getting off the dime and saying let's establish a film office,
but we're withholding funding until we know what it is we're paying
for. I don't have a problem with that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a public speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wood in addition to Mr. Ayres.
MR. WOOD: Hi, I'm Philip Wood, 2060 Laguna Way. I'm
trying to take in all your -- your comments at once here and
assimilate them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good luck.
MR. WOOD: I first started working on a similar project
like this back around 1987. You may remember that we had some plans
to build a gigantic sound studio out in the Lely area by -- Mr. Grant
Smith was headlining it, someone who had come from the Disney
corporation. That fell apart due to the economy and some other
reasons. Were it not for Just Cause, we would probably not be
standing here before you today, because that's what really provided
the impetus for this to occur. I have to agree with Ms. Hac'Kie, that
every day that goes past, that goes by since Just Cause has completed,
has finished up, we are starting to lose some steam.
And the things that we're going to do with Lee County
all have to do with marketing, and I don't have a problem if we want
to hold some -- withhold some funds and discuss the marketing later in
more detail and see what they're willing to agree to. The -- it's
very important -- you know, it's going to take us probably 60 days if
we start today to try to crank this thing up and -- and get the
complete job description disseminated and start looking for someone.
I'm hoping in 60 to 90 days we may be able to find that Collier County
person who will head this up. I would love to see us at least be able
to start that process today and even if we have to hold up on the
joint items that concern the marketing. And we will be happy to
provide any additional details that we need to, but we would like to
get something going if at all possible. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is a proposal there for
some idea that might be a median. Is there anybody on the board who
-- who does not want to support the hiring of a person to serve in
the film commission office?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think we need to see
what it is they'll be doing. We had this discussion whether they'll
be doing -- we can provide them with 20 hours a week work or 40 hours
a week work or 30 hours a week work, and that may depend on what we do
jointly with Lee.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion on the floor.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Surprise. Motion passes 5 to 0. I wasn't sure what we
were going to get on that one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neither was I.
MR. AYRES: I'm not sure what we got.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not sure what we got either,
John.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: More than you had when you came
in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not enough to do much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda as we
move forward we --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John -- John Ayres, call.
I'll give you a call.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-359, RE-APPOINTING MICHAEL PEDONE AND ROBERT MESSMERAND
APPOINTING ARTHUR SCHOENFUSS - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Item 10-A, appointment of members
to the contractors' licensing board. Nobody has anything to say?
We're not going to appoint a member?
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to talk today? Sue Filson
from the board office. This item is to appoint three members to the
contractor's licensing board. As you can see, down on the bottom
Robert Hessmet and Michael Pedone have both requested reappointment.
They are both qualified for reappointment, and I also want to note
that the last time we had an opening for an engineer, we didn't
receive an applicant, so we filled that slot with a general
contractor.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And now we have an engineer
applicant.
MS. FILSON: And now we have an engineer application.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, fine. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
Mike Pedone, and I am open to two other people to finish my motion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to add the engineer who
applied. I don't know how to say his name. Schoenfuss.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Schoenfuss. We have two. Is
there a recommendation for a third?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know either, so I'm --
MISS FILSON: One of the categories is architect. And
this is the only architect --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll -- I'll nominate Hessmet
then.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Perfect. We have a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. We have a motion
and a second to appoint Robert R. Messmet, Michael Pedone, and Arthur
F. Schoenfuss to the contractors' licensing board. Is there further
discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
Item #10B
REQUEST FOR COUNTY SUPPORT OF FUNDING FOR THE COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM - NO
ACTION
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the commission is
10-D. This is a CBDG grant support letter that I received to the
FAC. I distributed it yesterday afternoon to the college on the
commission. They're looking for the county to endorse the attached
letter, which is in support of funding for the community development
block grant program and the home investment partnership program. We
have letters prepared if the board should vote to do this where we've
taken the recommended wording and put it into our own letterhead and
so forth.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was this one of those where
we support congressional budget cuts, but not if it touches us?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my question, is where is
this cut coming from and, I mean, I don't know what the proposed cut
in these grants are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So who does?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know, sure, I'd love to
preserve a program that assists Collier County housing, but the
problem is are -- you know, everyone speaks up about that part that
affects us the most. As Commissioner Constantine said I don't know
what element this is of the big picture, so I feel like I'd maybe
being -- opposing something that in the overall program is a good
idea, and I just don't have the information to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that the discussions --
in the discussions with the U.S. congress earlier this year there
appears to be a move within the congress to put more and more money
into the CBDG grant program, i.e., education and so forth, so that the
monies would come down from the federal government with less strings
attached so that we can spend the money to meet our needs better than
having the congress send the money down saying you must spend it in
specific areas, and we look at those areas, say, gee, we don't need it
there, but we need it here. And the CBDG grant program fills that
niche pretty nicely where it allows us to maneuver and spend the money
in a more appropriate manner to meet our needs, not the federal --
federal government needs.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this letter were requesting
fewer strings and ease of local governments to apply for and expend
those funds, I would support that. But what this is asking is that we
support them maintaining CBDG funds at a level no lower than the
previous fiscal year. And I guess that just involves more than --
than what we have information on. I feel I -- in essence, my vote
would be somewhat of a blind support, because I don't know how this
fits into the overall budget cuts that this nation needs to make to
get down to a balanced budget.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine. If there is no
support to move forward on it, I don't object to it. I was asked to
put it on the agenda, which is what I did. I presume there is no
support, so we will not act on it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate you putting it on
the agenda. It's just sometimes these things come out of FAC without
a lot of backup and without a big picture and -- and that's what this
is lacking for my voice of support.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is the date that we need to
address this?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 15th.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: By the 15th.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: End of the week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So there is certainly not any
time to get more information on it. Okay.
Item ll-A has been withdrawn. We're at the public
comment portion of our agenda. Is there public comment?
MR. DORRILL: Not today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not today. Have the -- has the
afternoon agenda been properly advertised to occur before noon?
MR. DORRILL: I believe it has. Hang on one second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The whole thing here says
public hearings will be heard immediately following staff items.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 95-39, RE PETITION R-95-1, ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE,
HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING MS. ANDREA DEANE (TRUSTEE) FOR
AN APPLICATION TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY LYING EAST OF AIRPORT ROAD
(C.R. 31) NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896), WEST OF MUSEUM DRIVE AND
SOUTH OF YHCA ROAD FROM C-1 TO C-4 - ADOPTED, APPROVING C-3 ZONING AND
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS AMENDED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move on then to item
12-B-l, petition R-95-1. Mr. Duane. MR. NINO: Hay I present it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You sure can, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, your development services planning
staff. Petition R-95-1 is a petition that has to do with rezoning the
northeast corner of Airport Road and Pine Ridge Road from C-1 to C-4.
I'm sure you're all very familiar with that intersection and what land
uses lie around it, so I won't belabor that issue. The -- zoning land
from C-1 to C-4 really doesn't necessarily imply that more square
footage will be added to -- to that parcel of land with -- with a
greater level of -- of parking or traffic related to it so that we
really can't comment on the effect of -- of zoning property from C-1
to C-4 in terms of transportation impacts. We can tell you, however,
that the current use of the current property by commercial use would
not bridge any level of service requirement on the county's arterial
road system.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can say, however, that C-4 is
a more intense commercial usage than C-1. I mean that's the nature of
the categories.
MR. NINO: It's a more intense use, but if you looked at
the ITE manual for types of businesses that generate traffic, C-4 uses
don't necessarily generate more automobile trips.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What makes them a more intense
use?
MR. NINO: For example, a medical office. A medical
office would be a type of use that probably generates more traffic
than -- than a used car lot which is C-4.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then what is the measuring tool
for why C-4 is more intense?
MR. NINO: Intensity is not in that context. I suggest
intensity is not a measure of traffic generation, but a measure of the
use of the -- the way the property is used is deemed to be more
obtrusive, and more obtrusive tends to equate with more intense
generally when we deal with zoning that the heavier uses become more
obtrusive, more of a visual impact, and we tend traditionally or
historically to have associated that to mean more intense. But when
it comes to automobile parking generation, there may be insignificant
differences between the types of uses that are permitted in C-1 and
the types of uses that are, in fact, permitted in C-5 which we
considered to be the most intense of all of the commercial districts.
I simply wanted to bring that fact up. However, commercial
development at this intersection does not breach any level of service
relationship on Pine Ridge or Airport Road which are functioning out
there higher than the level of service standard as would otherwise
cause a problem.
The main issue that was brought to the planning
commission was that this intersection is important visually to the
Naples urbanized area. If you read the staff report, you'll find that
emphasis. And, therefore, there was a concern about the C-4 uses,
because many of the C-4 uses tend to have land use activities that
visually are inconsistent with what image we want to establish at that
intersection. Therefore, the C-4 uses were fine tuned, fine tuned to
the extent that those uses that had a large significant outdoor
activity to them were culled out of the C-4 area, were culled out of
the uses that would be permitted if you agreed to go to the C-4 zoning
district.
The -- the ordinance that we put together is an
ordinance that the planning commission reviewed and agreed unanimously
to recommend to you. We -- we feel with staff that our concern for
the importance of this intersection visually was addressed by the
deletions from the C-4 district of those uses that would be
inconsistent with that image of that intersection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ron, can you -- can you tell me
what -- or refer me to a page or something that tells me what C-4 uses
they have eliminated? MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I saw a letter from Mr. Duane
where he said his client didn't have any interest in.
MR. NINO: Page 10 of your -- page 10 of your executive
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Also, the resolution has the same
prohibitions contained, and you'll find that on 29.
MR. NINO: 29, page 29 of the proposed ordinance of
adoption lists a number of uses that would not be permitted that are
currently uses allowed in the C-4 district. And if you were to go
down that list, you would see amusement and recreation services,
automobile dealers, and gasoline stations. I might -- I might add
that the only -- the only use that was left -- if you read this, the
only use that's left that falls into the automobile dealers and
gasoline service station category is a gas station and a -- and an
auto parts store. Then the automotive repair services parking group,
you'll see that those deletions represent, for all practical purposes,
all of the uses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess my -- my question was
that I see in the agenda packet a list of what's excluded from C-4,
and I just wondered if anybody had handy a list of what they are
requesting be included, because I don't have C-4 memorized, so I don't
know, since you've eliminated three of the auto-related uses, which
auto-related uses are included. So it's -- it was hard for me in
reviewing this to know what it is they're asking for instead of what
it is they're leaving out. Am I the only one that has that problem?
I mean --
MR. NINO: I guess what we tried -- attempted to do was
verbally indicate to you that what we left in are uses that we feel
comfortable with in the sense that they take place within a building
and typically within a building that is of some architectural
significance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like to see the list.
MR. NINO: It's not a tin building, so to speak. But we
did not -- we did not, Commissioner, in the development request say,
well, we're taking these out, and this is what's left.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to know --
MR. NINO: We could tell you what's left, but it would
take some time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a copy of the
land code handy?
MR. NINO: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you just want to take a
peek at that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, could you answer for
me, is fast-food restaurant permitted in C-37 MR. NINO: Yes, they are.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As well as C-4, I assume? Okay.
MR. NINO: The upshot of this petition is that it -- it
includes all of the C-3 uses and a very limited number of the C-4
uses.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How do we go about --
MR. NINO: Now, I would remind you that we talk about
zoning compatibility, the three corners -- two of the -- two of the
three corners are, we think, generally consistent with C-3 uses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which two?
MR. NINO: One corner is zoned C-5.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which two would you say is
generally C-37
MR. NINO: The Carillon and the Crossings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this is going to be more
intense than those two?
MR. NINO: This will be more intense to the extent that
we've added some select C-4 uses.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why -- why hasn't this come as a
PUD, since we're picking and choosing between the -- the C-4 uses? I
mean when I first read this it says to fezone C-1 to C-4. And now
you're saying, well, we're only picking and choosing between selected
C-4 uses. Why is it we don't have this as a PUD then?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we don't have a list of what
uses are requested and recommended to be approved. We have a list of
what's excluded, not included.
MR. NINO: Madam Chairman, of course, we have no ability
to force an applicant to apply for a PUD. That decision rests with
the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that, but if -- if
it were -- if it were a PUD, it would have a list of -- MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- uses allowed, and this has a
list of uses not allowed. That doesn't tell us what is allowed unless
we walk around with the land code in our -- in our head, which I don't
do.
MR. NINO: The PUD would also reference SIC codes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ron, doesn't this in essence --
if we begin doing this on every parcel we fezone where we include or
exclude at will, aren't we creating a nightmare for you when someone
comes in, buys a property? You know, there's not a document that says
-- a single document that says this is what you're allowed or not
allowed to do as opposed to in a PUD. What we have here is C-4 zoning
on the books and a potential purchaser. How do they find out that
it's C-4, slash, restricted, which is a whole new idea?
MR. NINO: It doesn't. Let me say it does pose a
greater administrative burden. However, the zoning atlas map can have
the appropriate identifier on it that triggers a reviewer to look at
the specific zoning ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But every time they change the
Land Development Code and move SIC codes, we then have to go back and
change our zoning maps which has the references to the Land
Development Code, which has SIC codes. I'm seeing a domino effect
here that's going to be an absolute nightmare down the road if we set
a precedent and start doing this kind of thing on straight zoning.
MR. NINO: We're not -- yes, staff is not suggesting
this is a good practice. One of -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But you're recommending we do
it.
MR. NINO: One of the cons -- one of the cons you'll
note does identify that it does place a greater administrative burden
on the staff.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I noticed that in the staff
report.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Duane. I'm sorry.
MR. NINO: My only response would be that -- that we
would hope that you'd feel confident that staff in culling the C-4
uses would have culled it to the extent that only those C-4 uses left
that can be permitted are generally compatible with C-3 uses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They've given me a copy of the
ordinance, and I've asked -- Sue's making us all a copy so we can see
what the C-4 starting list is and then go through and mark out the
excluded, and then we'll have a -- we'll at least know what they're
asking for.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Duane. It sounds like --
MR. DUANE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
my name is Robert Duane from Hole, Montes and Associates.
Let me begin by addressing, I think, your first question
about the PUD. We had no objection to doing a PUD, but I think it's
fair to say that the staff thought when we were dealing with three
platted lots for which the infrastructure, as you can see is currently
in place -- that's the existing access onto Airport Road and an access
onto YMCA Drive with a retention area and one office use on this
tract. I don't believe that the staff thought that there was any
particular benefit for doing a planned unit development for those
three lots.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that picture in our packet
somewhere, Bob?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Huh-uh.
MR. DUANE: Excuse me?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wondered if you knew if that
picture was in our packet somewhere in the materials, because I can't
see --
MR. DUANE: I provided it to staff. I don't know if
it's in your packet. I don't think it is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't see it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The best we have is this one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I was sort of sneaky
asking the question. It ain't in there.
MR. DUANE: But, Commissioner Hancock, you know, on the
other hand, we're asking for straight zoning, but there were
provisions provided in the code several years ago just to do this, so
it would give the board the flexibility, if you will, to pick and
choose if that need arose, and under the old provisions of the code we
couldn't do that.
On the other hand, when you do a PUD, as some of you are
familiar with, it also poses somewhat of a burden on the applicant,
because if a use isn't in a particular list of uses or a tract
boundary rechanges, then you have to go through a whole rezoning
process. In this case we have three platted tracts, and we feel the
master plan is fairly well solidified, which is why we felt
comfortable with the pared-down list of C-4 uses, that we were
bringing you something that you could feel comfortable with.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that, Bob. And
quickly just to cite the difference is who the burden rests with.
Will it rest with the property owner who obtained the zoning and ends
up resting with our staff to continually update and change? And I'm
having a functional difficulty with that, and I'll leave it at that.
MR. DUANE: And I've given you the best explanation I
can as to how we've structured the uses. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DUANE: The C-4 zoning is important to us for a
number of reasons. But hotel is a permitted use in the C-4 district.
Our market study indicated a demand for a hotel. It doesn't appear in
the C-3 district. I think again with the uses that we pare down,
we're not asking to be treated any dissimilar than any of the three
corners. They have a preponderance of retail-type uses.
I also failed to mention to you that Mr. Anderson, my
client's attorney, is here. We also have some other experts this
morning essentially to testify to the effect that we strongly believe
that the C-1 zoning or the office zoning is obsolete at this
location. It's not a good location for office uses. My client has
tried to market this property since 1985 and, frankly, she's not been
able to -- to muster one offer for an office-type use, which is, of
course, why we're before you this morning.
We complied with the comprehensive plan. We meet or
exceed in most cases the standards of the C-4 district. Our lot width
and our lot sizes approach 1 acre in size as opposed to the 10,000
feet in the C-4 district. And with the uses that we've tried to pare
down, we think we truly have compatible uses at this location.
I'm going to step back and answer questions at this
point, because I think staff and I have both tried to walk you through
the process. And, again, Mr. Anderson and other experts are here that
he will introduce to you if you want to entertain that kind of
testimony. Again, it's our opinion that the office zoning is -- is
obsolete and, frankly, not a -- a viable use for this particular
location. And I'd tender any questions that you may have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have the unfortunate problem
of being in one of Collier County's least favorite intersections, and
I know that you didn't creativity centers. In fact, you probably
didn't care for them. But there's a lot -- there's a very critical
eye on this particular intersection because of the development that
has occurred in two of the four corners over the past couple of
years.
I guess what I'm looking for, as I look at the plan you
have on the wall, I see outparcel development, which is, in fact, as
intense as what has gone on in the last two developments there. And I
guess I'm looking for some balance of you're increasing -- you're
requesting an increase in zoning. And I guess I'm asking from you,
what is the general population or Collier County going to get in
exchange for that. What improvements are going to be benefitting
Collier County or at least have no adverse impact on Collier County in
-- understanding the problems at that intersection?
MR. DUANE: Well, let me begin by saying that a number
of improvements were dedicated at the time that this property was
platted. We dedicated 25 feet along Airport Road. We dedicated 25
feet along Pine Ridge Road. So we provided right of way to expand
both those roadways. In fact, we provided an internal circulation
system and a sidewalk at the time we went through the platting
process. Those were some public benefits that were previously
provided by this property.
I think I -- I hear you mentioning intensity of use.
For this particular location if you were to assume, you know, three
relatively intensive uses of this property -- and I'm not going to
suggest to you that any additional, you know, trips that go through
that intersection, you know, shouldn't be looked at, you know,
somewhat cautiously. But we're looking at under a worst-case scenario
of 1,600 trips or approximately 2.1 percent of the capacity of that
intersection. When you look at the 4 acres we brought before you, I
would submit it's -- it's minuscule compared to the 80 acres or more
of retail development that are on the two adjacent corners.
Unfortunately, my client was the second person to obtain zoning at
this intersection.
We let two large retail developments proceed while my
client tried to market the property for office uses, and ten years
later we're not sitting with any viable use for the property. That is
one of your rezoning criteria that you have to evaluate. And I
believe Mr. Nino can direct you to the section number, but it's our
opinion, and that's the underlying premise of why we're here. We have
zoning that we don't believe is realistic for this particular
location. It's -- it's a retail hub or magnet, if you will. It's not
conducive to office development. We have other experts that will
provide you additional testimony if -- if you think that there's an
absence of that information would preclude you from supporting the
petition today. Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just curious, Mr. Duane.
During that ten-year span, do you have any idea how much of that time
it has been listed with an agent? Has it been listed all ten years,
or has it been intermittent?
MR. DUANE: My understanding that there's been active
efforts to market the property for the better part of nine years. Hy
client is here who has had firsthand experience with that. Again, Mr.
Anderson will introduce her if you want more specific testimony to
that effect.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? I
think most of us right now are going through this C-4 list to figure
out what's still in it. MR. DUANE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anybody finish first?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately we've been given
information at the eleventh hour, the 59th minute, and it's difficult
to pour through all of it and understand it. Mr. Duane, you've
mentioned a hotel or motel on this site. Strange noises coming from
the back of the room.
Do you have any end users at this point for the property
that would help me shape what is going to happen there or what -- what
may happen?
MR. DUANE: I'm going to defer to Mr. Anderson on that
question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you going to build a house
there, Bruce, or '-
MR. ANDERSON: No. A house wouldn't be permitted even
under C-1 zoning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: I just want to make -- I'll answer your
question first.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: We have -- we are in final contract
negotiations with a major sporting goods retailer for the corner lot.
I'm not permitted to divulge any more than that. We're hoping that
that goes -- goes through certainly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. ANDERSON: And I think as Mr. Duane indicated, one
of the primary reasons for us seeking the C-4 was to have the ability
to -- to put in a hotel there, because in prior years there has been
an interest expressed. And the report by Mr. Hulhere that was
submitted with this petition substantiates the desirability of a motel
at this location.
Your Land Development Code specifically provides for
your ability with the acquiescence of the property owner to impose
straight conventional zoning on property and -- and limit the types of
uses that appear under there. I had a hand in inserting that in the
Land Development Code, and I'll tell you why it's there. It's because
of a court case that says that the county cannot impose PUD zoning on
someone.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. ANDERSON: And so the way around that was to give
you all the flexibility and the ability to place limits on the kinds
of uses that could be permitted under a conventional zoning district
with, again, the acquiescence of the property owner, which we were
happy to do with -- with particularly the outside uses that were
requested.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand the positive aspect
of that. We've kind of dwelled on the negative. The positive is you
came in requesting C-4, and our staff says, wait a second, there's
things in C-4 we don't think are compatible, and they've drawn those
out.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I understand that in the
positive aspect rather than looking at C-3 with additions. So I -- I
understand that. I'm just looking for more.
MR. ANDERSON: The -- the problem with C-3 and additions
is that we couldn't get a motel. It's not even permitted as a
conditional use.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You couldn't do it that way. The
only way to get C-3 and additions would have been through PUD.
MR. ANDERSON: Or as we're attempting to do now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me read through some of
them. Can you tell me if these are still in? Because as far as I can
tell, they are. Outdoor kennelling.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, except outdoor kennelling.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that out?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that out? I thought it was
out.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Agriculture, services, groups
except outdoor kennelling.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'll give you a couple
others. Miscellaneous repair services, that includes blacksmith
shops, septic tank and cesspool cleaning, farm machinery repair,
industrial truck repair, tractor repair, those all still in?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What did you decide about car
washes? Are they in?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, car washes is on here
too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What number was that under,
Commissioner Constantine?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miscellaneous.
MR. NINO: The entire subgroup is deleted. In
miscellaneous -- in miscellaneous repair services the entire subgroup
is deleted.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The entire subgroup is deleted.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's out? Okay. Social
services, 23?
MR. NINO: We've left those in.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Car washes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's under --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifth item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five, yeah, appears to be in.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, automotive repair has been
totally struck.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But car wash.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that's out. You're sure?
MR. NINO: That's out.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The entire subgroup is gone.
MR. NINO: All of those SIT codes are deleted.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eating and drinking
establishments.
MR. NINO: They're in, but they're also permitted in
C-3.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you -- Mr. Anderson, are
you comfortable in ruling out some of the C-4 conditional uses?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, we wouldn't be allowed to have those
anyway unless we came back on a separate conditional use.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How about hospitals?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was going to
suggest, is perhaps limit yourself more than that. MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to suggest you
limit yourself even more than that.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we can't -- you're not authorizing
us to have any of the conditional uses today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. I'd like to take it
the next step and say under this agreement you wouldn't come back ever
under those conditions -- for those items either. You know, I'm just
thinking obviously this would be subject to a public hearing, but
bottle clubs, soup kitchens, et cetera, all probably wouldn't be real
popular items with the --
MR. ANDERSON: We don't think we will be back because if
this zoning is granted, we will have marketable uses on the property
for a change, and we don't think we'll be back.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Duane said you might be
able to answer the question better. Do you know when -- when he
suggested this has been actively marketed for nine years, can you
define for me what actively marketed --
MR. ANDERSON: I would like to call the realtor who has
been market -- attempting to market this property all these years to
-- so you can hear directly from her, please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As far as you know, it has
been listed for all nine years?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. They even
expended money for a site plant to try to promote office buildings at
this location, all to no avail.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on the plan on the wall, it
appears that you're looking at possibly as much as -- as many as three
outparcels on this; is that correct?
MR. DUANE: Yeah. If you'll recall, that's the way it
was plotted.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Two concerns; one is
sufficient requirements to avoid a strip commercial situation, and a
second is are there any plans, or are you willing to commit to a
common architectural theme and signage among the three outparcels so
that we don't get a little hodgepodge of three drastically different
buildings?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we would.
MR. DUANE: Commissioner Hancock, the answer to your
question is, yes, we would not have an objection to that. There are
actually some deed restrictions that currently govern the use of the
property, and there has to be somewhat of a common architectural
theme. I'll be happy to add a stipulation to the agreement sheet to
that effect similar to what we find in some other plan development.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we get to a motion to approve,
I would strongly urge that that be an element of it for the simple
reason that I don't think when we look at outparcel development, that
we want -- as different and varying as some of our fast-food
restaurants are at this point, putting them next to each other becomes
an immediate eyesore. So I strongly encourage that and to include
common architectural signage for all three properties also. I
appreciate your amenable -- you being amenable to that, Mr. Duane. MR. DUANE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there -- are there other
questions? Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm slower than Commissioner
Constantine, so I just made it through most of the list, and it seems
to me that -- that generally what we've got is -- is C-4 with
limitation on number 2 that -- no, number 2 is out, this agricultural
stuff. And amusements can only be indoor, nothing outdoor? MR. DUANE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the automotive is severely
limited. And what's -- what are business service groups, business
services?
MR. NINO: Business service groups are photography
shops, advertising agencies, credit unions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ad agencies? They're the
worst. Oh, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then we have commercial
printing, communications, eating and drinking, engineering,
accounting, et cetera. You left out glass and glazing and left out
group-care facilities, left out marinas and miscellaneous repair, and
everything else is -- is in. And also included in this if we approved
it would be number 26, any other general commercial usages comparable
in nature with the foregoing. MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's kind of a way of saying
there may be a business out there that from the outside looks no
different and operates no differently than some of these but in our
infinite wisdom we did not include. That's fairly standard. It's in
about every PUD, and it leaves an element of discretion for staff.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there a reason that
vocational schools and hospitals would continued to be included?
MR. DUANE: It just didn't seem like it was a realistic
use for the property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of like including marinas.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: SO why don't we take it out?
MR. DUANE: I don't think we have any objection to
taking hospitals out.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hospitals and vocational
schools?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what about social services?
What -- that one makes me nervous.
MR. DUANE: I don't foresee a social service user.
Frankly, the land values are very high at this location, would
preclude those kinds of services.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because of it being adjacent to
Tall Pines subdivision, it seems that might be one we would want to
take out.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What would be a social service;
that's not a homeless shelter or soup kitchen? MR. DUANE: A fraternal organization.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. Basically outpatient
counseling. Is that under medical, or is that under social services?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, David Lawrence --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any objection to
taking that out?
MR. DUANE: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And about real estate -- just
kidding.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Nino, are we going to
complicate our job if we eliminate these additional three -- MR. NINO: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- uses and if we put a
restriction of common architectural theme and common architectural
signing?
MR. NINO: We can restructure the ordinance to
accommodate those goals. What were the three? I have hospital,
social services and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hospitals, vocational schools,
and social services.
MR. NINO: All right. We can structure -- restructure
the ordinance to accomplish your goals.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Is there a motion?
Are there further questions?
Close the public hearing?
Thank you. Do we have public
I'll close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve as
amended.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Including Commissioner
Hancock's comments.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For a common architectural theme
and signage being required of the property owner.
MR. ANDERSON: Can I ask one clarification question on
the signage?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. ANDERSON: Are you talking about freestanding signs
or '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I would prefer to see any
signage whatsoever be tied into the buildings and the buildings tied
into each other so this is more of a cohesive development instead of
three completely separate entities. That's -- that's the focus and
intent. So I would like the signage tied in with the individual
buildings and with each other to maintain a common architectural
theme.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the petition eliminating from the C-4 uses hospitals,
vocational schools, and social services and adding to the agreement
that there be a common architectural theme and a common architectural
signing. If there's no further discussion --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I just -- I'm not sure how
to vote on this because we're making a huge jump from C-1 to C-4, and
we're doing this without any -- I mean we all can see offices is
probably a bad idea, but this is a huge change for this intersection
that's already so heavily impacted, and what we didn't even have a
discussion about is is C-4 the right place to go.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What if the property was zoned
agriculture at the moment?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would be the same huge leap.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. But it doesn't
alter the fact that it's consistent with the activity center and the
growth management plan and all of those criteria that have to be met
to -- to justify this type of zoning.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What -- what kind of notice do
people who live in Tall Pines get? Do they have to read it in the
newspaper to know about it, or did they get any kind of actual
notice?
MR. NINO: The normal public hearing requirements were
met by notifying people within 300 feet of the boundaries of the
property being rezoned.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So did any of the residents in
Tall Pines get a notice of this fezone?
MR. NINO: Of course. There was an advertisement in the
newspaper. I don't think Tall Pines would lie within 300 feet. It's
beyond 300 feet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's far beyond 300 feet. There
are no residential units, I don't believe, within 300 feet of this
parcel.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I
appreciate your concern. Are there particular items in C-4 that are
grabbing your attention?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. It's just that the huge leap
with so little discussion is -- I'm just afraid we haven't adequately
examined, you know, what's the -- what are the repercussions? What's
it going to end up looking like?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess the reason that I don't
have a -- I'm not -- I don't want to go back to C-1 and build my way
through C-2, C-3, and C-4 is my personal knowledge of those zoning
districts and what the resulting impact from development of either a
C-2 or C-3 use on that property is not grossly or is, in fact,
negligibly different than what we're approving today. And I guess I'm
kind of going back on my experience locally to -- to make that -- that
judgment. So for us to go back and to pare everything all the way
back to a C-2 or C-3, I don't know that we would accomplish anything
that would provide a positive benefit to the community, because I
think the impacts of traffic, aesthetic, visual are not going to
change. In fact, the C-1 use in which you may have a medical office
there, the traffic impact is even greater than, in most cases,
retail. Was it something like 26.7 per -- anyway, I've looked at it
MR. NINO: It's up at 60 -- 60 automobiles per 1,000
square feet for medical. I'm sure that most retail would drop to
about 25.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From my standpoint, for us to
deny a petition, there has to be merit of impact differential between
the C-1 and C-4, and I don't see that. So I think if we shot it down
for that, we'd end up in court spending more tax dollars. And this
way at least we're getting a common architectural theme and a cohesive
effort. I guess it's the case that's the best you can hope for, in my
opinion, because they're already commercial.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my only -- I'm not being very
scientific about this. I have heard people who live in Tall Pines
say, oh, no, don't worry. It's just office zoning there. It's not
going to be one of those big intense commercial strips so -- MR. DUANE: Hiss Hac'Kie, I would like to have a
unanimous support of the board on this petition. I can see that
you're struggling between the C-3 and the C-4. The principal use in
the C-4 district we were interested in was a motel. Now, we had some
interest some time ago back. If -- to get your support going from C-4
to C-3 makes you comfortable with the understanding that if we do find
an end user for a motel, you know, a real user of that facility, we
will come back to the board. I can't tell you that I have a hotel
today to do that with, so it's not -- it's easier for me to give that
up as long as that we understand that that is the only use that was
keeping us, you know, in that C-4 district, and I think my client
would be willing to go back to C-3. That gives us the preponderance
of the uses that I think we need. And if you'd consider a C-4 for a
hotel if we have a user, and if that makes you feel more comfortable,
we would volunteer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would feel a hundred times
better.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What are we -- what are we
talking about doing then? Dropping back to a C-37
MR. DUANE: We're volunteering to drop back to C-3.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And is a hotel a conditional use
on C-37
MR. DUANE: No. It's not a permitted use, but if we
come back with a hotel user, we would like some favorable
consideration provided you feel it's an approvable plan.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we have difficulty
committing a future board.
MR. CUYLER: If -- you can just sort of nod your head,
but you -- obviously outside of the public hearing you can't make any
commitments.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my original
motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the project
with C-3 zoning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. NINO: Madam -- may I interject, because I -- I
thought Commissioner Hancock's point was well-made that even if it's
C-3, would you not agree that an architectural theme ought to be a
requirement?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Amend my motion to include a
requirement that the petitioner provide an architectural theme and
signage for the entire property, and thank you to Mr. Nino for
reminding me of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Architectural theme and signing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And signing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the second accepts the
amendment. We have a motion and a second to approve this petition
with only C-3 use with a common architectural theme and common
architectural signing. Is there further discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
MR. DUANE: Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Why don't we take a
break? We only have a few things left to do after lunch. But why
don't we look at maybe a half hour. Can we do it in a half hour?
No?
Break for lunch a half hour. Be back at 10 minutes of.
(A lunch break was held from 12:22 p.m. to 1:16 p.m.)
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 95-40, RE PETITION R-95-3, DAVID S. WILKISON OF WILKISON AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING IHMOKALEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RHF-6 RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY TO RHF-6
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE TRAFFORD
ROAD BETWEEN HIGHWAY 29 AND NINTH STREET/JEFFERSON AVENUE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the Board of
County Commission meeting for June 13th, 1995. Well, the 35-minute
lunch turned out to be a 55-minute lunch.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's okay, hour lunch turns out
to be 90 minutes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sometimes. You're right.
Next item on the agenda is 12-B-2, petition R-95-3.
Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino of Development Services, current
planning division. Petition R-95-3 is a petition for a parcel of land
in Immokalee that's currently zoned RHF-6, and this petition would
seek to have that land zoned RSF-6. That may seem odd to you, but the
reason for that is that the petitioner wants to build single-family
housing and create a single-family subdivision, which is a permitted
use in the RHF-6. But if you looked at our RHF-6 standards, you would
find that they're simply not structured to allow someone to subdivide
single-family lots, because, oddly enough, the minimum lot size in the
RHF-6 district is one acre, and that doesn't work. So this petitioner
had to seek rezoning to accomplish their objective of building
single-family houses -- creating a single-family subdivision.
Of importance, of course, is that it is the Immokalee
Habitat, and their goal is the construction of low income housing for
low income people, and I think that's a laudatory goal. This action,
if approved, would be entirely consistent with the Immokalee area
master plan and the Collier County Growth Management Plan. And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ron, excuse me. Before we lose a
point -- I have a feeling the same thing was going to come down here.
Obviously we have seen a problem with minimum lot size and being able
to deal with permitted uses. I assume you've put that on a list of
things to change in the LDC?
MR. NINO: I believe Mr. Hulhere has that in his list of
things to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my comment.
MR. NINO: And the Planning Commission unanimously took
this matter up in Immokalee and unanimously recommended approval.
There were no objections voiced over the approval of this petition,
and they highly recommend it to you. Mr. McCormick, who represents
the Immokalee Habitat, is here.
MR. MCCORMICK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Richard McCormick with Wilkison and Associates, representing
Immokalee Habitat for Humanity. And I'm also accompanied by Mr. Ed
Sorenson, board member for Immokalee Habitat for Humanity.
We don't have anything to add to Mr. Nino's
presentation. I don't think I need to discuss the validity or the
good things that the Habitat does for our community. They've
constructed over 100 homes. And this proposed development will be
their main site for their '95 - '96 construction season. So we're
moving ahead to get all the development orders prior to the majority
of their volunteers returning.
We think this is an excellent location regarding
services, community need, and utilities, and we ask for your approval
on the petition.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for the
petitioner? Are there public speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: We have no speakers for the afternoon
at all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve
the item. Is there further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0.
MR. MCCORMICK: Thank you.
Item #12B3
ORDINANCE 95-41 RE PETITION R-95-4, PAUL T. KANE REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM RMF-12(8) TO RMF-16(13.3) FOR A PROJECT TITLED PINE CREST
CONSISTING OF 120 DWELLING UNITS AS QUALIFIED THROUGH APPLICATION OF
PROVISIONS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE LOCATED IN
IMHOKALEE AT STREETS BOUNDED BY EUSTIS AND DELAWARE AVENUES AND 9TH
STREET SOUTH - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is
Petition R-95-4. Mr. Nino, you're up again.
MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino of Development Services,
current planning staff, presenting Petition R-95-4. R-95-4 is for a
tract of land -- subject parcel is a tract of land in Immokalee. It
has frontage on three streets: Delaware, Ninth, and this is -- this
is 846 into the area -- downtown area of Immokalee over here
(indicating). The Seminole Indian Gaming Palace is over there
(indicating).
We have village residential zoning on either side of
this project. This area is a mixture of mobile homes and
single-family, detached housing and substantial numbers of vacant
lots. To the east of the property is the current Immokalee apartments
with 100 units. And to the west of this property is vacant land zoned
RMF-6.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. NINO: This property is currently zoned RMF-12 and
has a cap of eight on it. That is the result of our zoning
teevaluation program which looked at properties that were zoned at a
higher level than is -- than is allowed within the master plan -- in
this case the Immokalee area master plan -- and consequently that was,
in effect, capped at eight dwelling units per acre.
This petition includes an affordable housing element.
The petitioner has submitted a density bonus agreement that has been
reviewed by Mr. Mihalic and by our county attorney's office, and it
meets -- it meets our requirements as to legal form and content. The
affordable housing bonus would have the effect of allowing 5.33
dwelling units -- density -- dwelling units per acre as additional
density over and above the eight dwelling units that can be built
there now as a matter of right. Since that produces a total of 13.33
higher than an RMF-12 zoning district, we have to go to the RMF-16
zoning district; however, we have to put the cap on it of 13.3. So
the recommendation here that comes to you from the Planning Commission
with unanimous approval of the Planning Commission and no level of
opposition from anybody in the area and a finding that this rezoning
is consistent with the Immokalee area master plan is one that suggests
-- one that recommends an action to fezone the property to RMF-16
with a cap of 13.3 dwelling units per acre.
You'll note that the ordinance of adoption contains
within it a number of conditions that have been written right into the
ordinance that have to do with buffering and have to do with
integrating this project that is anticipated to be 120 rental units
with the project immediately contiguous to it of 100 dwelling units.
As a matter of fact, it's the same owner. That owner is here,
Mr. Paul Kane. The conditions address common -- common screening,
address improving the quality of the streets, address putting in
recreation amenities that would, in fact, bring the two projects
together and eliminates the requirement for internal buffer, because
that would further separate the projects.
We strongly endorse this petition to you. Again, we
think it meets the goals of the housing element of the Growth
Management Plan. Mr. Mihalic is here to address any issues you might
have with respect to the operation of the -- of the rent geared to
income proposals.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Kane, is there more that you
need to -- Mr. Anderson, I presume, representing Mr. Kane.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. I haven't heard any
discussion. I don't know if you have any questions. I can give a
brief presentation or just see if you have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just see if there's questions.
Are there questions from the commission?
And there's no speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to approve the
item. Is there further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just the statement that we have
been talking about focusing on very-low income, and I know that this
property has 72 units allocated to very-low income and 48 to low
income, which is pretty much what the doctor has ordered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very much so. If there's no
further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #13A4
RESOLUTION 95-360, RE PETITION V-95-4, RICK BELL REQUESTING A 10 FOOT
REAR YARD VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES OF 10 FEET TO 0 FEET AND A 2 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 7.5 FEET TO 5.5 FEET - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is item 13-A-4, petition
V-95-4.
MR. POWERS: For the record my name is Martin Powers.
I'm from the current planning section. Petition V-95-4 is a request
for reduction in the rear and side yard setbacks for accessory
structures in a residential district. Petitioner's requesting a
ten-yard reduction in a rear yard setback from ten feet to zero feet
and a two-yard reduction in the yard setback from seven and a half
feet to five and a half feet. This was heard by the Planning
Commission on May 18th and was forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
Is the petitioner here? We have questions for him?
MR. POWERS: Yes, ma'am, he's here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask if there's questions
from the commission. Doesn't appear to be any.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The pool is to be built all
the way to the rear lot line; is that correct?
MR. POWERS: No, sir. The screen enclosure would go --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The screen enclosure --
MR. POWERS: As you can see, it's a recessed seawall.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. POWERS: And the screen enclosure would go to that
recessed seawall.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Goes to the seawall?
MR. POWERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't attach to the seawall,
though?
MR. POWERS: I think the petitioner could probably
explain his plan for that.
MR. BELL: In answer to that question --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Are you Mr. Bell?
MR. BELL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BELL: I need to say that for the record?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. BELL: I'm Rick Bell. In addressing that it would
not attach to the seawall -- but as it is there's a wood deck now that
goes up to the seawall which I would replace with a concrete deck, but
it would not attach to the seawall.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. It's hard to tell sometimes
on our little maps that we get with our packets. It really looks like
it's pretty short back in there.
MR. BELL: Yeah. There's approximately 22 foot of deck
there now from the back of the house to the seawall. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. BELL: So I wouldn't be, you know, going up to the
seawall again. But I guess what I understood that variance was wrote
for -- I mean not the variance but the setback, was to stay off the
canal, which with my seawall being an indented setback, I'm still
actually ten feet off the canal, as far as anyone else.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions?
I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hove approval.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to approve
Petition V-95-4. Is there further discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you,
Mr. Bell.
MR. BELL: Thank you.
Item #13A5
PETITION SV-95-2, MS. SHERRIE WOLF OF NORTH AMERICAN SIGNS REPRESENTING
BARNES AND NOBLE BOOKSELLERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROVISIONS
OF DIVISION 2.5 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A BUILDING LOCATED ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF U.S. 41 NORTH (NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL) AND SEAGATE
DRIVE - DENIED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And Mr. Powers.
Next item on the agenda is item 13 -- I've lost it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: A-5.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 13-A-5, Petition SV-95-2.
Ms. Sherrie Wolf is with the petitioner. Whe's handling it?
Mr. Nine.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're getting quite a workout
today.
MR. NINO: Ren Nine for the record. Petition SV-95-2 is
a petition by North AMerican Signs representing Barnes and Noble,
which is a large book store that is currently under construction at an
outlot in connection with Waterside Shopping Center at Pelican Bay.
The sign regulations allow two wall signs for lots with
a corner lot orientation. This petitioner is of the opinion that they
require three lot signs, three wall signs, and will make a
presentation to you to support -- to support their position. As you
know, there are findings required of us to recommend favorably on a
variance petition. The findings were such that staff, which was
concurred in with the Planning Commission -- I'm sorry. This doesn't
go to the Planning Commission. Staff could not find that there was a
hardship that was unique to this property that would justify a
recommendation for approval; however, we think we would be remiss if
we didn't point out to you that if you look at the genesis of the
corner lot provision, there's no question in my mind that it envisions
your typical corner lot, which doesn't have any relationship to a
shopping center. And invariably in most cases the interior -- one of
the streets would be -- would have -- would have a relationship with a
residential zoning district.
I'm suggesting to you that historically that corner lot
concern for allowing two wall signs comes out of -- out of that kind
of thinking, and that you do have a bit of a different situation here
where you have an outlot to a shopping center. For all practical
purposes this building is an integral part of the Waterside Shops, and
one can understand the request of the applicant to desire visibility
by virtue of a sign to people who are doing business within the
shopping center.
We still don't find that there is a hardship that is
attributable to the land, but we felt we would be remiss if we didn't
bring that perspective to your attention. We think the petitioner
needs to justify and make their case. The recommendation of staff,
however, is that one -- to deny.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One. What action did we take
-- Mr. Cuyler or Mr. Nine, do you recall -- we've had a couple of
these in the last few months. One, I think, was a K-Mart or maybe a
Target.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Target.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What action did we end up
taking and under what rationale?
MR. HULHERE: I think it was K-Hart, and it was approved
by the board. That was a request to have multiple signs on a single
frontage to identify subdepartments. The pharmacy, I think, was the
issue, a sign that said pharmacy. And they agreed to remain within
the maximum 250 square feet permitted. So they made smaller signs but
put a couple -- two or three signs up within it.
This issue hasn't really come up before. I don't think
we've had variances where they're requesting more than two signs for a
corner piece of property. And I think that Ron is correct in assuming
that -- we believe the genesis of that is on a corner property you
face two streets, you want the signs to face the streets to attract
the public. In this case they're looking for a third sign that would
face the shopping center to attract the shoppers there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask a general question?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a general question about the
procedures. And the agenda item we just heard, 13-A-4, was a variance
and isn't presented to us at all in the same way that 13-A-5 is
presented. First, it came with the recommendation of approval, and it
didn't lay out the -- the criteria as 13-A-5 is handled, and I just
wondered is that a different procedure? Why does that one look so
different from this one?
MR. CUYLER: I believe the criteria are laid out in
13-A-4 and 13-A-5.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they're not --
MR. CUYLER: I mean there should be yes and no
questions.
MR. HULHERE: I think I can -- I think I can answer.
For whatever reason when the sign code was adopted, the Land
Development Code did not require that the sign code be presented to
the Planning Commission -- that a request for a variance in the sign
code be presented to the Planning Commission first. So I think in the
previous petition you see the criteria laid out in the staff report
fashion. In this case there was no staff report, because it didn't go
to the Planning Commission. So obviously it's not the same
structure.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. Thank you.
MR. NINO: Sorry. I didn't understand your question.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Ms. Wolf, do you want to
say what you need to say to convince us to do this?
MS. WOLF: My name's Sherrie Wolf. I'm from North
American Signs from South Bend, Indiana. And I'd like to introduce --
this is Jim Hayes from Barnes and Noble, and this is Ernie Fernandez
from Ernie's Signs. Do they need to submit the pieces of paper for
public speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Not necessary.
MR. CUYLER: As long as they state their name for the
record, that will be okay. This is the last petition.
MS. WOLF: I have some pictures that I'd like to show
the commission, if I might.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you just going to hand them
to us or are you going to talk in the mike as you go?
MS. WOLF: I can talk in the mike as I go. Basically
these pictures show the location and show some of the hardships that
exist at this location. You'll see that the storefront is blocked by
trees.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you just give all the
pictures to Commissioner MAc'Kie.
MS. WOLF: Okay. That's easier. I made copies for
people.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's only one-fifth as
many as it looks like.
MS. WOLF: Some of them have copies and some don't.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll sort them out as you do
your presentation. I'll sort them in five little piles.
MS. WOLF: Thank you. Basically what we're asking for
is a third -- a wall sign for Barnes and Noble. They are entitled to
two wall signs under the code. The code reads that for each road
frontage you can have one wall sign, and that is measured by taking
either twenty percent of the facade or 250 square feet, whichever is
smaller. In this case we're only asking for 173 square feet, which is
what the sign measures out to. Barnes and Noble Book Sellers is 173
square feet. If you did take the twenty percent measurement of the
facade, the storefront is 108 feet wide by 39 feet tall, which comes
to roughly -- it's over 4,000 feet. And twenty percent of that is
close to 800 square feet.
So given the size of the building, you can see from the
color rendering the letters will be white with green outline around
it, and they are -- they fit architecturally with the building. The
building was designed for the sign to go in the area that you see on
the -- on the drawing there. The storefront is the east elevation.
And as you can see from the pictures, it's blocked by the trees there,
and we're asking for the third wall sign because of that hardship.
That's one of the hardships.
Another one of the hardships is that we would be under
the code entitled to a freestanding sign, but in this instance the
land ordinance does not allow a freestanding sign, and so we won't
have visibility from that. I would suggest that adding the wall sign
is less intrusive on the environment than adding a freestanding sign.
Just driving through the area -- you can see from the pictures as
you're driving north on U.S. 41, you won't be able to see the
storefront at all, because it is blocked by the trees. That's why we
were asking for the -- to be able to put the letters on the south
elevation. And when you're driving south on U.S. 41, there are some
trees in front of the north elevation as well, but there is a break
there where you can see the sign. But again, the storefront is
blocked by the trees.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do I understand you correctly in
that you're saying the east elevation is blocked by trees, but you're
going to put a sign there anyway?
MS. WOLF: Yes, because that is where the door is. That
is -- there is only one door and that's where the people will go into
Barnes and Noble. So we want to have a sign over the -- over the
entrance.
Also, I think I gave you pictures of -- and I'm not sure
if this is -- if this was before the code was enacted or not, but we
did find examples of other -- there's the Fifth Third Bank. There
were, I think, seven different businesses that had three wall signs
with two frontages, and they also had a freestanding sign. We're not
asking for a freestanding sign.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: These photos that you gave us have
some of those examples of buildings with signs on three faces?
MS. WOLF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Unfortunately, these happen to be
in the City of Naples and --
MS. WOLF: Are they all in there?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know if they all are.
MS. WOLF: I'll read off the list of the ones that I
found, and I'm not sure which ones are and which ones aren't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I can save you some time
on that.
MS. WOLF: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm borrowing a quote from my
colleague some weeks ago. If I rob a bank and get away with it, that
still doesn't make it right.
MS. WOLF: No. I understand, but it is one of the
points in the Planning Commission's decision was that we would be
getting an unfair advantage by creating the variance, whereas there
are examples where there are -- well, the ones I saw -- again, I don't
know if they're in the city or not, but where there was one frontage
and they had three wall signs and a pylon. So I don't think that
granting --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was Fifth Third, and that is
in the city.
MS. WOLF: Okay. There was also the Inn of Naples on
41.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's in the city.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's in the city, and
Visionworks is in the city.
MS. WOLF: Mercantile Bank?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: City.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: North Trail.
MS. WOLF: U.S. 41. City? How about Visionworks?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: City.
MS. WOLF: That's right across the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a neat little jogging
line there.
MS. WOLF: Okay. I wasn't aware of that. And the
Barrett (sic) Bank.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Barnett Bank is in the city.
MS. WOLF: Comfort Inn, First Union Bank, those must be
in the city.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: City.
MS. WOLF: Okay. So much for that argument.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least you recognize that.
MR. DORRILL: We're trying to work on them to bring
their codes up to ours.
MS. WOLF: I guess my -- from an aesthetic point of
view, we don't want to -- well, the signs fit with the architecture of
the building, and they will fit with the high quality of the -- that
shopping center there and will not detract from -- from the quality of
that shopping center.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are the signs on that color
rendering? Is the signage on there? MS. WOLF: Oh, can you see it?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was hoping maybe you would pass
it to us. I mean there's a sketch in this thing, but it's not
very --
MS. WOLF: This is the south elevation.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is right down the street
from my house.
MS. WOLF: You can buy lots of books there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I will live there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have the time to read
them. I have a drawing here in our package. It shows a wall-mounted
sign on the east side, a wall-mounted sign on the west side, and
you're also requesting one on the south side; is that correct?
MS. WOLF: No, no. That is correct. That is what you
have in your package. I think originally we had asked for the signage
to be on the west, the north, and the east. And then a representative
from Barnes and Noble visited the site and determined that the best
visibility would be if we placed it on the east, the north, and the
south.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is your proposed sign on the west
side the same size as the other two?
MS. WOLF: Yes, they would all be the same size.
They're all going to look just like the drawing. There will be 173
square feet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're asking for over 515
square feet of signage when it's all said and done with the three of
them?
MS. WOLF: Correct. And we are entitled to 250 per side
under the code, you know, for the road frontages which we are not
using all of. We're only using 173.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: True, but I think that's a use it
or lose it type of proposal. MS. WOLF: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems to me it would not be
that obnoxious; however, it does not meet our code. We need to have
some sort of hardship in order to jump that hurdle, and I have not
heard one yet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only difficulty I see that is
in your favor is the fact that there's vegetation on the entrance side
that in order to make your sign visible, the vegetation would have to
be removed, thereby putting the storefront kind of right on the
roadway.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, they can't do that; right?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, they can't do it. I'm just
saying maybe this is something that should have been investigated
before the building was built, but we don't have that luxury at this
point.
MS. WOLF: Well, we don't want to tear down the trees.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, and I don't think we do
either.
MS. WOLF: No. I mean it's a beautiful site. I've been
there and seen it, and it's a high quality operation.
And I'd like to have Jim Hayes -- he can tell a bit, if
it's okay, about Barnes and Noble.
MR. HAYES: For the record my name is Jim Hayes. I'm
the district manager with Barnes and Noble. I think this is actually
going to be one of the best book stores in the state. I'm not saying
that from a biased pointed of view. I live up in Tampa, and I saw
this site for the first time driving up north and had difficulty
figuring out that that was actually the store. I believe that the
building is going to be quite attractive. The sign is not intrusive.
I'm also concerned about the traffic that occurs in the wintertime
here. There are people coming up from the north. They can't see it.
They'll already go right past it. We're projecting about $5 million
in sales in that location.
We do know there are three things that can hinder us:
location, parking, and signage. We're very satisfied with the
location. We're very satisfied with the parking. Signage is why
we're here. And it's estimated that we may be losing about twenty
percent of that business in the first year because of lack of
signage.
I'd love to see this variance approved. Can I take any
questions?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Give us the hardship.
MR. HAYES: Okay. The hardship -- the hardship as I
see it is that the trees in front, which we want to keep there and you
want to keep there -- the landlord has not allowed us to put a pylon
in front. Essentially that's what I see as a hardship.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I be sure I understand, may
I, that the third sign is the one that will be blocked by the trees?
MR. HAYES: No. The third sign -- the one that we're
asking for is on the south side. I believe there's a picture there
that looks right over the Rhodes Furniture building. And as you come
up 41, that's where you can actually see the sign. Aside from that,
you'd drive right by it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you only get two signs, where
are you going to put them?
MR. HAYES: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you can only have two signs
instead of three, which walls would you --
MR. HAYES: Where they currently exist.
MS. WOLF: The storefront's on the north elevation, so
there wouldn't be a sign on the south elevation for drivers coming
north on U.S. 41.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You've got to be on the
microphone.
MS. WOLF: Oh, sorry. Can I also speak in here? They
put them on the north and the east elevation, and so drivers coming
north on 41 would not be able to see -- would not be able to identify
what the store is until they were beyond the trees and looked back at
it. And therefore, you're talking about a traffic safety argument as
well. Drivers are going to have to make U-turns. It's not -- it's
not good for the city, you know. You're going to have traffic
accidents. If -- as you're driving north on 41 east --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they don't see you, they're
not going to have an accident. They're just going to keep on going.
MS. WOLF: They're going to miss the great experience of
Barnes and Noble.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions -- go
ahead.
MS. WOLF: I might add also the age of the population is
a bit older down here, and drivers -- everyone can't see. I wear
glasses myself, and you need to be able to -- studies have indicated
that between 92 and 96 percent of the public wants and uses signs, and
this would be helping the customers for Barnes and Noble to make a
safe entrance into the store and identify the store.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ernie, can you help us with
hardship here? Ernie.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we want to do it, but
we're looking for the hardship. MS. WOLF: The trees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm not sure I want to do
it. It's the sign that -- you know, where they're going to put the
sign is clearly commercial. We're talking frontage on the highway,
and then on the side that's basically in the parking lot of a -- of a
shopping center. And the other side there is -- is a residential
area.
MS. WOLF: No. That's not the -- the south faces
Visionworks, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Faces Rhodes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It faces Rhodes Furniture, and
Rhodes Furniture is the only piece of commercial property. Right
behind Rhodes Furniture are houses. I'm sorry. There's a church, and
then there are houses. I mean it's a residential neighborhood no
matter -- I'm not sure it's a good idea to put a sign on that face of
that wall anyway.
MS. WOLF: Might I answer that? It's zoned commercial.
And when something is zoned commercially, basic good planning
principles suggest that accessory uses also have to enhance the site.
Signage is an accessory use, and it has already been zoned
commercial.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love Barnes and Noble. I
should own stock in it as much money as I spend in there. I will
probably spend my free time there drinking coffee and reading books
and buying books, but I haven't heard anything about a hardship. And
I'm not even sure if it's a good idea if I can find a hardship, so I'm
not going to be supportive.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have a motion yet. Are
there further questions?
There are no speakers?
MR. DORRILL: There are none.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public comment.
Do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Ms. Chairman, Barnes and
Noble is a quality outfit. They are -- they're going to be a great
asset to our community. There's no question about that. They're a
top-notch firm and they have a top-notch product, and your building is
certainly going to be in keeping with our community and an asset. One
of the things they probably don't realize coming from somewhere else
to build a building here in our community is how protective we are of
the appearance of our community. And one of the mainstays of that
protection is our sign ordinance. All you have to do is cross the --
the county line going into Lee County and there's an immediate,
tremendous difference in the appearance of the landscape because of
the signage.
And in keeping with some of the recent decisions we've
had on similar cases, the Target store for example, I'm going to make
a motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
deny petition SV-95-2. Is there further comment?
There being none, I'll call the question. All those in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you,
Ms. Wolf, and I guess you have two signs.
MS. WOLF: I guess so. Thank you.
Item #13A6
RESOLUTION 95-361, RE PETITION CU-95-1, MR. NINO J. SPAGNA REPRESENTING
THE SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST
REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "7" AND "10" OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT TO
ALLOW FOR A CHURCH, SCHOOL AND OTHER RELATED STRUCTURES FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SABAL PALM ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY ONE AND
ONE-HALF MILES EAST OF C.R. 951 - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item
13-A-6, petition CU-95-1.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record my name is Ray Bellows,
current planning staff, presenting petition CU-95-1. Neno Spagna,
representing the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, requesting conditional
uses seven and ten of the agricultural zoning district to allow for a
church and school for property located on the north side of Sabal Palm
Road and one and a quarter miles east of County Road 951. It's a
proposed 15,000-square-foot church, which will provide seating for 400
members, while the 45,000-square-foot school will serve approximately
260 to 300 members.
The surrounding land uses include undeveloped
agricultural land to the north, west, and south of Sabal Palm Road,
and there's a mobile home on the lot to the east. The traffic impact
review indicates that the church will generate approximately 594 trips
on a Sunday, while the school will generate approximately 500 to 600
trips on a weekday. This will not lower the level of service on Sabal
Palm Road. The environmental review staff has indicated that the
property will not impact any environmentally sensitive areas.
Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with the Growth Management
Plan.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this
petition on Hay 18th and recommended approval by 6-0 vote, subject to
staff stipulations. In addition, two adjacent property owners
attended the Planning Commission and expressed their support for this
project.
Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Mr. Bellows, two items.
The surrounding properties that are anticipated will be residential in
nature eventually; is that a fair assumption?
MR. BELLOWS: It's agricultural. That's a fair
assumption. It could be that or agricultural.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Assuming the most conservative,
though, which is that it becomes residential, two questions: I note a
recreation area and ball field. Is it planned that that be lighted?
Do we know that?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe the petitioner stated
whether it will be lighted at this time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because we have situations
where people build homes and spill over from a community park or from
the area can create a problem.
MR. BELLOWS: Typically all projects like this will
propose lighting. We'll put in a stipulation that shielding be done
to protect adjacent residences. It should also be noted 75 percent of
the space -- the site is open space and well buffered.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I would like to make sure
we do include some stipulations if those fields are lighted and are
across from the adjacent property that it be properly shielded. The
second problem, do we currently have sidewalks on Sabal Palm Road? MR. BELLOWS: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have any significant
residential areas nearby where sidewalks would be warranted?
MR. BELLOWS: No. It's rural agricultural, so no.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions for Mr. Bellows?
Mr. Spagna, do you have something you wanted to add?
MR. SPAGNA: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My
name's Neno Spagna, and I represent the petitioner. And I believe
Mr. Bellows has pretty well explained the petition, so I'm here mostly
to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for the
petitioner?
I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to find it consistent
and approve the petition.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
the petition CU-95-1.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
that includes the --
Second.
Motion and a second to approve
May I ask the motion maker if
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Including the stipulation
aforementioned by Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the petitioner agree with
that stipulation?
MR. SPAGNA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Put it on the record please,
Mr. Spagna.
MR. SPAGNA: Yes, the petitioner does agree with that
stipulation.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Neno.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's no further discussion.
I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
That concludes our published agenda for the meeting of
June the 13th. We're into communications. Next on the list is Board
of County Commissioners' communications. And Commissioner Norris, did
you have anything?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Nothing today.
Commissioner Hancock.
No.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
No.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two quick items. I just
wanted to compliment the manager and the staff for the displays that
are here. I think that's a nice addition, very informative.
Second item, the landfill site selection committee has
met three times thus far and are making very good progress. I'm very,
very encouraged and would be happy at a future board meeting to
present a presentation for the board, if you'd like, showing what
we've come up with thus far and what direction we're headed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, how has
the attendance been at those meetings?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excellent. With the
exception of one person who had a conflict at the first meeting, I
think we've had 100 percent.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excellent, excellent. I had only
one -- well, actually two items to talk about on communications. One
is just a few seconds long, and that is I met with citizens last night
in Immokalee, and they're having some serious concerns about crime and
drug trafficking and so forth in the Immokalee area. I talked with
the sheriff on our lunch break, and I believe there is another
scheduled meeting Monday evening where we're going to try to address
some of these concerns and see if we can't get some sort of resolution
on them.
The last item deals with the county manager's evaluation
coming up. I've passed out this morning to you a memorandum, and I
apologize for the last line of page 1 being at the top of page 2.
When you're on Spellers that sometimes happens. But what this is is a
request for the Board of County Commission to take the county
manager's duties and responsibilities -- which are just about ten
years old now I'm told -- along with his updated duties and
responsibilities that he agreed to have ready for us today. And he's
going to distribute those so that in the next couple of weeks we
categorize and prioritize these duties and responsibilities so that we
can move forward in an -- in an evaluation program, and we'll have
hopefully some more objectivity to it and so that we can all share in
the responsibilities that he has so that we understand them more
thoroughly.
And that's pretty much what it is is to ask this board
to spend a few minutes and go through that process and get it -- get
it back to me, if you would, after -- after the break so that I can
complete the evaluation form and distribute it to handle this. I
think Mr. Dotrill may have some things he wants to add to it, what
some of the adjustments are to his duties and responsibilities.
MR. DORRILL: I don't have anything other than to
express the concern that I had expressed a little earlier in the
year. One of the problems with being your county manager is that
while from Tuesday to Tuesday we receive direction, it is -- it's
frustrating to try and manage this county when there are no clearly
established goals and objectives for the commission as a whole for the
year that we're in. And we're -- we're a little more than two-thirds
of the way through the fiscal year, and it's -- it's difficult -- I
heard it explained one time that the city or county manager's role is
to steer the ship of government, but it is the city council or
commission's control to be the wind in order to determine the general
direction that you wish your ship to take. And it is -- it is
frustrating, and I know that we've talked about it over the course of
the last two years.
It would certainly help the entire staff and the
executive staff if at some point the county commission could consider
developing some goals and some objectives and then some performance
milestones for the staff as a reasonable basis of our ability to do
our job. Enough said on that. Some of the recent --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I comment on that?
MR. DORRILL: Please.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just because I heard recently --
I had gotten a similar idea when I heard that Lee County, for example,
has identified economic development as their priority for the fiscal
year. And goal setting is something we all acknowledge is a good
idea. And maybe as we are about to start a new fiscal year, something
we should do is prioritize issues that we want to address in the
year. So I just wanted to echo my support for that. I think that's a
wonderful idea, and it's something that would give us some focus.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to ask are you sure
you want to refer to us as the wind? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The hot air?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just thought I would check on
that one.
MR. DORRILL: It's important enough that the chairman of
this community visioning group that is being spearheaded by the
Greater Naples Civic Association, and some others have even come and
visited me recently. They have hired a professional facilitator who
in a lot of the services associated with that are being comped and/or
paid for by that group, and they have even asked me to determine
whether or not we might take advantage of that individual as they
start to try and develop some goals. I said that as just food for
thought.
Some of your recent frustration, I think, has to do with
clearly defining the roles and expectations between my office and
yours. And I have talked to some of you individually that if county
employees are contacting you at home in the evening having not fully
exhausted their administrative remedies to bring concerns or perceived
or actual intimidation to my attention or to the attention of their
division administrator, you put us at a disadvantage in terms of the
knowledge and/or ability -- and I know some of you have recently been
referring those individuals directly to me if they had not already
done so. I think that is a start in the right direction, because
you're otherwise very frustrated with -- with information or one side
of what is always a two-sided story, that then you have concerns about
either perceived management style or inaction on the part of
management. And I think along the way to the extent that you can
define the role that you want me to take and then in turn define your
role will help respond to those individual problem areas.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me respond to that a
little bit in that I think both Commissioner Mac'Kie, myself, and
perhaps other have had individuals who have indeed gone through all
the administrative remedies, have gotten nothing, or at some point
with some individuals have actually been penalized for going through
those. And so I think there is -- whether it's a perception or
reality at this point doesn't really matter. There is a perception
there. It may or may not be accurate, but there is a perception there
that going through the administrative process doesn't work and may
actually cost them in the long run. So I think that's where some of
that frustration comes. I don't think it's that we are the first stop
on the tour for any of these employees.
MR. DORRILL: I didn't say that. But I think in some of
the recent cases that had been cited, at least for those of you who
have asked those people, Have you talked to your division
administrator or have you talked to the county manager, if the answer
to that is no, then I think that it certainly helps us in order to
have some semblance of discipline here. Even if there is the
perception of intimidation at the department director level or section
head level, the failure for those people to bring to our attention the
concerns or perceived problems that they're having, we can't help them
if we don't know what the issues or their concerns are. And that's my
only point.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will say that with that -- in
specific instances I dealt with that I hear as well, I went to this
point and I kind of got beat down, so I was afraid to go any further,
and they saw the commission as a, if you will, safe haven. In other
words, we couldn't reach out and affect them on a daily basis.
That being said, I continue to say, Well, you know, I
will act as an interim, and I've notified the county manager of the
situation, and as far as I know you're dealing with it. And that
person knows if they've run into a roadblock with the county manager,
the next step may be to contact the commission.
MR. DORRILL: Absolutely. I don't want you to think
that I'm not doing anything. What I've been instructed to be done --
and I've reported this to you previously -- is to create and improve
on the powers of the employees' advisory council, because if they
don't trust their coworkers and the people that they have elected to
represent them with management -- that to me seems to be the best
place. And I have instructed the human resource department to prepare
an administrative policy or procedure that could be adopted by the
board that would enable me to impanel three individual members of the
employees' advisory council to receive concerns of intimidation or
perceived or actual sexual harassment in order to refer those to more
of an independent group and to bring those then to the attention of
management. So I don't want you to think that we're not doing
anything or that we're refusing to do anything. We're proceeding on
two different fronts.
For those of you who share with us information, I've
investigated that information and will continue to investigate
information concerning specific instances through either my personal
assistant, Ms. Edwards, where I think it's appropriate, or a panel of
individuals who are outside of county government where I think that's
appropriate. And in addition to that, we are creating a policy to
impanel under the employees' advisory council to receive testimony or
information to determine the merit of that and then to have that
referred directly to my office or the human resource office. Final thing, and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you changing the subject?
MR. DORRILL: About to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Let me comment before you
change. Those -- a couple of new things it sounded like you just
described there. The special panel or somebody -- is that something
we'll be getting? Is that going to be a written policy?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, it will be, as was the policy on
anti-fraternization and the revised policy and update training
protocol for sexual harassment.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what sort of time frame for
those?
MR. DORRILL: I believe the end of the week or this
coming Monday.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. And just for what it's
worth, I have not had a conversation with an employee that I haven't
referred to you.
MR. DORRILL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted you to know that I
know that's where things ought to go. I commend you for coming up
with some new ideas for how people can go about reporting their
problems, but I continue to be determined that we're not going to, you
know, just put blinders on and say in order to avoid anarchy, we're
not going to talk to people. And I'm not willing to do that. And as
much as I would just assume not be involved in this, if people want to
talk to me, I'm going to talk to them and hear what their complaints
are, and then I will refer them on. But the fact that people feel the
need for somewhere else to go other than the existing systems is the
indicator of a problem. So I'm encouraged that you're coming up with
new systems, and I look forward to seeing them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me comment on that a little
bit. You've got to remember at the same time that while what you just
said may be true in some cases, that it would be very easy to cause
harm to someone in a position of power by using the same mechanism
which -- bringing forth a case that may or may not have merit. And if
you are going to treat all those cases as valid without investigation,
I think that's a mistake.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What would make you think that I
would ever consider such a thing? I wouldn't.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Because of some of the statements
you've made.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that perhaps there have
been statements made by people other than me. What I have said is
that we have some employment, personnel, human resources problems in
this county that include sexual harassment -- that are broader than
sexual harassment. They, in fact, involve intimidation of employees
who aren't women, by men who are being intimidated by their bosses.
And all I'm doing is reporting the information that comes to me. I'm
not judging them. I'm not a judge. I'm not even giving them any '-
I'm not doing anything with them except reporting them to Neil and
asking him to deal with them. So I'm not judging them. And if you're
listening to radio shows or getting your information from something
like that, that's your business. But if you hear what comes out of my
mouth, what's coming out of my mouth is that there are problems, and
I'm referring them to Neil and making it clear that it's his job to
solve them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The purpose in which I brought
this forward today was as a result of what I have been hearing
different county commissioners state in the last several months.
Ms. Hac'Kie often says, I want him to fix it. It often has capital
I-Ts. I keep saying that I want him to do his job. Commissioner
Hancock has often said similar things, Would you just -- you know,
Just do your job. And it's come to my thinking that sometimes when I
hear these statements, I have to ask myself, I wonder what that is.
What's the description? And that's what the genesis is for what I've
asked us to do is for Mr. Dotrill to give us a better description of
what he does, which is what he's done in a two-page document here.
I've gathered the job description from Mr. Whitecotton, which is ten
years old and probably very inaccurate, and then Mr. Dotrill has gone
further to take a weekly allocation of his time to compare his -- this
average hours is two years ago, is that correct, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And his current hours that he's
spending on doing these different tasks. And the purpose for this is
for us to better understand what it is he's doing and for him to
better understand what it is we would like him to do. That's why I'm
trying to garner information from each of the six of us -- not just
five, but the six of us -- so that in the end we are sort of at least
talking the same story, that we are working toward a similar goal
instead of six different goals, one of which Mr. Dotrill has to answer
to five of us where we may not necessarily be specifically telling him
what those goals are.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just say as much as I
support that effort -- I absolutely do. I think it's -- visioning and
planning and setting goals and identifying is all the right thing to
do, but let's be careful when these two conversations get connected
that nobody on this board -- and certainly Mr. Dotrill has never
questioned that it is his job to solve human resources problems in the
county.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think anybody's
questioning that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's keep those two separate
and -- and for one thing give him credit for knowing that. He already
knows that's his job. He's going about trying to solve it. So I
support what you're proposing, but I do want it clear that, you know,
we know at least with regard to human resources issues that that's his
job -- clearly his job right now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There, I think, may be a
difference in philosophy here that I need to make very clear. I don't
think we're ever going to get to a point where the five of us agree
wholeheartedly in a single breath on what the county manager should or
shouldn't do in a given situation. That's not my job. When I hear of
problems, whether they be personnel or operational, I pass them along
to the county manager, and they either get solved or they don't. I am
not going to be involved in making a list of the things that the
county manager has to do on a daily basis, because that's not my job.
It is his job or her job or whomever sits in that chair.
So my job is to evaluate the performance of the county
manager, and that's done by having an understanding of how the county
government is operating. That's the gross assessment I have to make.
And I'm a little uncomfortable going into a detailed
this-is-what-you-do assessment, because I think I'd be speaking out of
-- out of position there. So I don't know what form you would like
to see this take and I don't know to what degree, but the bottom line
is that when there's problems I expect him to solve them. If he can't
solve them, we'll get someone who does. And that's key with any
employee, and hopefully that's how he runs his agency. So that's
really the gross approach I'm taking. And I don't -- I don't really
want to be mischaracterized in any other light.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The idea behind this -- and I
don't think we're losing track of what the concept is. The concept is
that I have asked the county manager to categorize the various duties
that he performs. I have no idea what all the duties are that he
performs, and periodically they will change from week to week, day to
day, month to month, or even year to year. We were yesterday
discussing an evaluation -- a self-evaluation that he did two years
ago. And as we went down the list he said, Oh my gosh, this has
totally changed in a short two-year time.
So the idea is not for us to dictate to him what those
duties are. He knows what his job is. The idea that I have in mind
is that we take the broad categories, the four to six categories,
whatever they be -- and he's listed six -- six here, and that we -- we
prioritize what we think individually are the categories that will
keep this government running smoothly currently and into the future.
And then in addition to that -- and it is not our job to
tell Mr. Dotrill how much time he should devote to that. I merely
asked him to supply us with that information as to the amount of time
that he's currently devoting to each -- each of the broad categories.
It's not my job to tell him I want him to spend ten hours a week on a
specific category. My gosh, I don't know what's happening from day to
day. And it's his job to do that. These are tools that he has put
together to help us continue with the evaluation process that we're
going to be undergoing later this summer. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, how long have
you been county manager?
MR. DORRILL: Little more than eight years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope after eight years you
have some idea of what your job is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sure he does.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the county manager
ordinance clearly defines that. If we want to do as Commissioner
Hac'Kie suggested, the beginning of each year -- fiscal year, calendar
year, what have you -- set up our priorities so that you know what
direction this wind would like to take the ship of the county, that's
a great idea. But I've got to agree with Commissioner Hancock. As
far as what details you use to get that ship headed in that direction
is your business. I hope I don't hear you say you're not sure what
that job is right now. I don't think that's what you're saying. MR. DORRILL: No. And in fact --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This discussion has gone so
far from one side to the other. I want to make sure that's not what's
being said, because if you don't know after eight years what your job
is, then we have a bigger concern than just personnel issues or just
where your time's being spent. So we need to clarify -- MR. DORRILL: No. In fact, the answer to question
number one was -- and you'll recall that in the absence of having any
clearly defined board goals, I submitted my own annual work plan. And
I did it the first month of the fiscal year at least to tell you what
it was that I intended to accomplish by the end of the year, and how I
get there is, in fact, my sole responsibility.
The information that I passed out was done at the
request of Ms. Matthews, because she has indicated to me and indicated
earlier in the year that she wants to attempt to provide an objective
method of determining my performance when we get to September when you
do my annual evaluation. And so I didn't solicit that. She asked me
for information purposes to share with you the elements within the
county manager's job description in some estimation from my part as to
how I split the time that I have in order to perform those.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just going back to
Commissioner Hac'Kie's point, you haven't had any doubt in your mind
that dealing with personnel issues is part of the county manager's
job, have you?
MR. DORRILL: None whatsoever.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So as I've asked this board,
Mr. Dotrill has been kind enough to categorize the various duties as
he sees his duties. And I'm sure after eight years he knows precisely
what those duties are that it takes him to keep this government
running on a day-to-day basis. I don't want to interfere with that,
but I want to make sure that if Mr. Dotrill sees operations as being
number one priority to keep it running on a daily basis and we might
see legislative as the number one item, that we at least mutually
agree that he has a different perceived picture than we do. And
that's -- that's what I'm trying to get to.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you feel about -- do you
think we could accomplish this same goal that you have -- I too don't
have a great deal of interest in drafting a job description, but I
think that probably what you're looking at -- okay. There's five of
us. We all have priorities. We all tell Neil what to do. He has to
decide how to prioritize among the five sets of instructions.
perhaps if what we did instead of spending our time on a job
description is set board priorities, maybe that would be a better way
to spend our time and give him some guidance down that same road.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'd like to say once again
that I'm not asking anyone to write a job description other than what
Hr. Dotrill has already done and what he perceives his job description
to be. I'm asking us to look at the categories that we can define in
a broad context and to prioritize them, rank them one, two, three,
four, and five as to which we feel are more important so at least we
have an idea amongst the group as to what we feel is important and
what isn't. That's all I'm asking. It's that simple. Shouldn't take
more than ten minutes. It shouldn't. We've discussed it longer than
it's going to take to do it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I'd like to do is have that
be a part of -- you know, let that be the first step toward doing this
overall goal setting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm looking -- I'm hoping
to get this information back from each of us so that we can
incorporate it into the evaluation process -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and to introduce more
objectivity into it so that we can get away from the subjectivity a
little more than we have in the past. And that's the only goal here.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My response to that is that
whatever we prioritize today --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It could change.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- it will change. The priorities
change on a weekly and monthly basis depending on what's going on at
the time. And really to prioritize it today is fine for today, but
what about next week or next month? I mean all of these things are
important, and they will be -- they're pretty much equally important,
and they become more important at different times and less important
at different times.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess what I'm asking you to do
is weigh -- if there are operational problems and legislative problems
going on at the exact moment, which do you want to take care of
first? And that's -- that's what I'm talking about prioritizing. And
those -- it's not that difficult.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We want it all done by
yesterday.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had one other item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I think, has one or
two quick items that he needed to address.
Item #15
STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS
HR. DORRILL: Two quick ones. I just wanted to make
sure that the board had received a copy of Dr. Stokes' letter
expressing some caution that we all stay on top of the alternative
landfill site selection process and questioning the wisdom of selling
the land that you have in advance of that. I realize that the
direction that we have is to proceed to declare that land surplus and
have it sold in advance of a -- a new site being selected and
evaluated from a permitting perspective. And I -- I can't say that I
disagree with that. I just want to make sure that you've all had a
chance to see that letter and at least reflect on it, because that is
the direction that we are proceeding in.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've seen it, and I've read it,
and I'm evaluating it, I guess is the best way that I can talk about
that. I think we all, especially Commissioner Constantine and myself,
are a little bit concerned that so long as we hold that land in the
solid waste inventory that the DEP may very well force us to expand on
that site. And we've all pledged to do what we can, whatever that
might be reasonably, to not do that. And I think that's what the
concern is that I've heard also from the citizens that -- they're a
little bit concerned as long as we hang on to that land in the solid
waste inventory that the DEP will look on that as connective land and
expandable.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's important to keep it in
perspective. This is before any of us were on the board, but the
county purchased that land thinking that they had at the time only
seven to ten years life left in the existing facility even if they
maxed that facility out. While it's not our preference, if we have to
maximize the use of the existing facility, we're still there another
25 years. So the property purchased to the north was -- doesn't fit
the scenario we're in now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think those residents, given a
choice, would rather us expand the existing site than go --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go further to the north.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think that commitment's
fairly strong. I appreciate Dr. Stokes' advice -- he's a knowledgable
man -- but I think the board's been very clear we're not going to use
that property for a landfill.
MR. DORRILL: Second item I had was the recent
neighborhood park at Naples Manor will require -- and I don't believe
the donators and volunteers were aware at the time that our Land
Development Code requires us to fezone any of those sites with a
conditional use under the essential service category. And because of
your upcoming recess and the time that it takes to do that and their
previously conceived work schedule, they have a desire to proceed with
that subject to our reviewing a final site development plan. I
wouldn't intend to prejudge your will on that day. You will have to
consider rezoning that to a conditional use.
The offer that I had made to the organizer of that event
is that I would bring this up today only to acknowledge that if they
are willing to proceed at their risk to do the associated work within
the time frame that they have pending our review of a final site
development plan, that they will do so and agree to work with us in
the event that the board for whatever reason would not fezone that
neighborhood park as a conditional use as a way of trying to
accommodate the volunteer work schedule that they have and they've
already developed. They will need to determine whether or not they
want to proceed with that risk, but it's -- we cannot grant nor
predetermine your will on the day of the public hearing, but that's
the only offer that I know to make to them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can accept that if they're
willing to move forward at their own risk and knowing that we've
already accepted it conceptually.
MR. DORRILL: You'll recall there are no elaborate
parking facilities. There are no restroom facilities. This is a tot
lot, if you will, and I think they have a desire to put some type of
water fountain there also. But aside from that and subject to the
approval of the final site development plan, I would sure like to find
a way to try to work with these folks.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In an extreme moment of
foolishness, I would say that's a safe path to take. MR. DORRILL: I'm finished.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I believe -- I mean we
don't want these people to put their work into it and -- nobody's
saying anything more. Okay. I don't think we have a problem with it,
but I'm not seeing a lot of heads move either.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't advise them moving ahead
at their own risk.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cannot possibly prejudge the
issue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, we can not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems like a nice place for a
park, but I guess we'll have to wait.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think this board has already
said that they think it's a good idea.
Nothing further? Finished? We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda
be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-306, RE ALFRED CONTINANZA AND
ALEX CONTINANZA
See Pages
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR NORTH NAPLES FIRE STATION #42 EMS
ADDITION - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A3
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR CARLTON LAKES SALES TRAILER -
SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A4
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "KRAPF SUBDIVISION"
Item #16A5
RENEWAL OF COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.309 "WOODFIELD LAKES"
(PUD-88-86) - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 95-357, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN YACHT HARBOR DRIVE
See Pages
Item #16B1
PURCHASE OF READY MIX/MOBILE CONCRETE FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID #95-2376 - AWARDED TO KREHLING INDUSTRIES
Item #16B2
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OF $12,375.00 AUTHORIZED AS FULL SETTLEMENT TO
THE OWNER OF PARCEL 101, WESTCLOX AVENUE (IMMOKALEE) FOR CIRCUIT COURT
CASE NO. 92-2079-CA-01-TB
Item #16C1
APPLICATION AND CONTRACT FOR THE CONTINUATION GRANT OF COMMUNITY CARE
FOR THE ELDERLY FUNDING AND BID #95-2373 FOR GRANT SERVICES AWARDED TO
VARIOUS PROVIDERS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16C2
APPLICATION AND CONTRACT FOR THE CONTINUATION GRANT OF THE ALZHEIMER'S
DISEASE INITIATIVE FUNDING FROM JULY 1, 1995 - JUNE 30, 1996
See Pages
Item #16C3
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-22 DISBANDING THE COLLIER
COUNTY HOMELESS ADVISORY COHMITTEE
Item #16El - Deleted
Item #16E2
BID #95-2346 FOR SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES - AWARDED TO VARIOUS
VENDORS AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E3
BID #95-2375, AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR PURCHASING AND INSTALLATION OF
FLOOR COVERING - AWARDED TO WAYNE WILES CARPET AND THE DUFFY & LEE
COMPANY
Item #16E4
BID #95-2381 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS AT THE
IHMOKALEE LIBRARY - AWARDED TO CONDITIONED AIR CORPORATION
Item #16F1
COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WAIVED; EVS LIMITED RECOGNIZED AS THE SOLE
SOURCE PROVIDER OF HI-BAC INFANT/CHILD CAR SEATS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EHS) DEPARTMENT
Item #16H1
EMERGENCY DECLARED; PURCHASING POLICY WAIVED; CONTRACTUAL TERMS OF THE
ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT RE RFP 94-2191 WAIVED; WORK
ORDER UNDER CURRENT ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
TO ELIMINATE EXISTING MASTER PUMPING STATION 1.01 LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF VANDERBILT DRIVE AND lllTH AVENUE
See Pages
Item #16H2
CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT THE RAW WATER BOOSTER PUMPING STATION ELECTRICAL
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, RE BID #95-2366 - AWARDED TO VANDERBILT BAY
CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $388,000.00
Item #16H3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND A PROJECT TO REPLACE GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD
WELLS #11 AND #16 IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,400
Item #16H4
WORK ORDER UNDER THE ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES - WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,000
See Pages
Item #16H5
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, HONTES
AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO EFFLUENT
MANAGEMENT AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
See Pages
Item #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following Miscellaneous Correspondence presented to the BCC has
been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated on
the miscellaneous correspondence:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1994 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
133 05/26/95
1994 REAL PROPERTY
164-166 05/23-06/01/95
Item #16J2
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16K1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $4,880.00 FROM COUNTY PROBATION REGULAR
SALARIES TO OFFICE EQUIPMENT
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 2:28 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Anjonette K. Baum