BCC Minutes 10/08/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 1996
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners
in
and for the County of Collier, and 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
this date at 9:08 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members
present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Bettye J. Matthews
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission
meeting to order on this 8th day of October 1996. Mr. Dotrill, if
you
could lead us in an invocation and the pledge, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this
morning for the rain and the relative safety of our community
yesterday with the events of the tropical storm. We give thanks in
Collier County for its people, as always, for the county
commission,
and we ask that you guide their business deliberations today as we
make important decisions for Collier County and the people of
Collier
County. Father, as always it's our prayer that you would bless our
time here together today and these citizens who choose to
participate
in their governmental process and that this would be a fruitful and
beneficial time for all. And we pray these things in Jesus's name.
Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I see we have a couple of
changes to our agenda this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Yes. Good morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good morning.
MR. DORRILL: I have just three changes to your agenda
this morning. There -- I have two withdrawals. The first one is
10(C) under the Board of County Commissioners, which was a
discussion
concerning a proposed new water management district. The other
item
to be withdrawn is on your consent agenda, 16(A)(4) under community
development, which was the final acceptance of certain subdivision
facilities in Forest Lakes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question on that one,
Mr. Dotrill. The purpose for that being withdrawn instead of
continued, do we know?
MR. DORRILL: I frankly don't know. Obviously, it will
have to come back. The staff may not have a date, and that's why
they're not continuing it to a date certain.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It's not being withdrawn
for the purpose of not returning but to delay and give time, I
assume?
MR. DORRILL: That -- that's my understanding on it.
Someone from community development would have advised me otherwise,
if
that's the case.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is something that's been
long in the works, so that's why I'm asking.
MR. DORRILL: We'll -- we'll determine that right after
the start of the meeting, and I'll let you know. I have one item
also, Mr. Chairman, this morning that we're asking to continue.
It's
requested to be continued for one week. It's Item 12(B)(3) under
advertised public hearings, PUD-82-33(3).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's continued for one week or two?
MR. DORRILL: The request was for one week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wouldn't it -- wouldn't it be more
appropriate to come back in two under our normal public --
MR. DORRILL: It would be just to keep us on schedule
with our public hearings. That is a PUD amendment for a project
known
as Wiggins Bay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which I think we have a lot of
residents here for or at least a handful. That continuation means
that item will be heard two weeks from today, same time, same
place.
But apparently, there's some -- is the petitioner requesting that -
that continuation?
MR. DORRILL: His agent is here, Mr. Pickworth, who
advised me just prior to the start of the meeting that the
petitioner
was asking for a continuance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything further?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. That's all that I have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Under BCC communications I'm
going to have a related item to what was formerly 10(C) from a
discussion with Commissioner Manning of Lee County.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll have an item under communications
as well.
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second your motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those favor in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. No. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was just a late approval?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was just a late aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Chairman, for those
people that are here for the Wiggins Bay PUD, that has been
continued
for a period of two weeks, so the item will come back to this board
two weeks from today, this same room, same time. And at that time
it'll either be heard or completely withdrawn would be my guess.
We
generally will honor one continuation, but not more than that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: God only knows. I don't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm trying to give the residents
-- you know, that we're not stringing them out is what I'm trying
to
say.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 8, 1996, AS MENTAL ILLNESS
AWARENESS
DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There are no minutes to approve this
meeting, but we do have some proclamations. Commissioner
Constantine,
I believe you have one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I believe we
have Kathryn Hunter here with us this morning, director of the AMI
of
Collier County. And if she'd come on up, we'll read the following
proclamation. Why don't you come up and turn around so everyone in
TV
land can see you and wish you the very best. Proclamation.
Whereas, the National Alliance for the mentally ill has
proclaimed October 6 through 13, 1996, as Mental Illness Awareness
Week; and
Whereas, the Collier County local affiliate, the
Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Collier County, more commonly
known
as AMI-CC, is a member in good standing; and
Whereas, AMI of Collier County also wishes to proclaim
October 6 through 13, 1996, as Mental Illness Awareness Week; and
Whereas, AMI of Collier County also wishes to proclaim
the month of October as Mental Illness Awareness Month; and
Whereas, AMI of Collier County also wishes to proclaim
this day, Tuesday, October 8th as Mental Illness Awareness Day; and
Whereas, AMI of Collier County is a family organization
for people with brain disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar
disorder, depression, ADD, and ADHD; and
Whereas, AMI of Collier County hopes that by passing
this proclamation, we will raise public awareness about all brain
disorders and reduce the stigma that is attached to brain
disorders.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 8, 1996, be
designated as Mental Illness Awareness Day.
Done and ordered this 8th day of October, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, John C. Norris, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve
this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
(Applause)
MS. HUNTER: Good morning. It's always a pleasure every
year to come here and accept this proclamation. Three years ago
when
I began at AMI, the phone really never rang with family members
asking, you know, for information about schizophrenia or bipolar
disorder depression. We're really nationally reducing the stigma
that
is attached to brain disorders. Mental illnesses are brain
disorders;
they're physical. You would treat a cold just like you would treat
bipolar disorder or schizophrenia or any other disorder.
The phone rings off the hook now. Parents are calling
constantly. We have 17 year olds, 18 year olds that are being
diagnosed. Families are being devastated by these illnesses. They
affect one in four families. So if we count the number in this
room,
I guarantee some of you are affected by a brain disorder such as
depression as well. Just by being here and doing this
proclamation,
you're reducing the stigma, and we really do appreciate that. And,
again, thank you very much. And now David Fekete will speak to
you.
MR. FEKETE: My name is Dr. David Fekete, and I would
like to think that during mental health month some progress could
be
made in dispelling some of the stigmatizing and restricting
misconceptions about mental illness. There are a few glaring ones
that I would like to point out at this time.
First, as Kathy said, the term "mental illness" is a
misnomer. What we call mental illness is, in fact, an illness of
the
body like diabetes, like epilepsy, or Parkinson's disease. What
we
call mental illness is really a dysfunction in the chemistry in the
biology of the brain. A preponderance of medical evidence now
points
to an imbalance in the neurotransmitters, those chemicals that
allow
communication between the brain cells, as the cause for mental
illness. For that reason in my following remarks I will refer to
the
term "neurobiological disorder" for what we miss --
misappropriately
call mental illness.
Since the basis for neurobiological disorders is in the
body's chemistry, effective medicines are available to correct this
chemical disorder. Many persons with biological disorders function
well, sometimes superlatively, in our society thanks to
psychotropic
medication. Yet these functioning persons rarely come to mind when
we
hear the words "mental illness." All too often the misleading
image
of someone acting weird locked up in a psyche ward comes to mind
when
we hear the words "mental illness."
To the casual observer, a neurobiological disorder might
not even be apparent. I don't suppose that to look at me or to
hear
me speak anyone would think that I'm mentally ill; that is, unless
you
remember me from last year's proclamation. In fact, I am mentally
ill. I have an illness called bipolar disorder or manic
depression.
I was hospitalized in 1992 in terrible shape; however, I have not
needed to be hospitalized again since, because the medications
developed by researchers worked for me. These medications keep me
healthy and many others like me.
My illness was not an obstacle to accomplishment in my
life. I have a master's degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. from the
University of Virginia. Currently I teach at Edison Community
College
and Berry University. Unfortunately, the general public does not
think of persons like myself when they hear the words "mentally
ill."
They think only of the extreme conditions that a neurobiological
disorder can produce. They simply don't know that persons with
neurobiological disorders spend most of their time out of the
hospital
in a relatively lucid state of mind.
Now, I'm not exactly saying think of me when you think
of mental illness. I have no ambitions of becoming the mental
health
poster boy, but I'd like for you to consider me and some of my
friends
with neurobiological disorders in your thinking on this subject.
One
such friend runs her own cleaning business here in Naples. Another
is
a full-time secretary in town. Another is a host at a popular
restaurant. Still another is a nurse practitioner. One is a
construction engineer. Another works in a hospital lab. Another
is a
technician in a psyche ward. And another is a real estate agent;
you
may be buying property from him. We're everywhere.
Then there are the celebrities with neurobiological
disorders: Abraham Lincoln; Teddy Roosevelt; Winston Churchill;
Ernest Hemingway; Dr. K. Jamison, a professor of psychiatry at
Johns
Hopkins; Ted Turner; Art Buchwald; Patty Duke; and you probably are
aware of new to the list, Margo Kidder.
We need to remember this list of active, lucid men and
women who, nevertheless, possess what we call mental illness. This
list creates a dramatically different, more accurate picture of the
realities of neurobiological disorders. We need to get rid of
those
archaic, damaging stereotypes that are perpetuated by fear and
ignorance and replace them with an informed understanding of this
illness. Remember, mental illness is really physical illness, and
there are medicines that restore the body's natural functioning.
The
majority of us are out participating in society and functioning
well.
And while we are on the subject of medication, I would
like to take this time to thank the Collier County Health
Department
for the economic aid that they provide for obtaining medication.
Personally, I don't have an insurance plan, and it would be
difficult
for me to purchase my medications, which cost about 200 a month,
without the aid that Collier County is providing for me. Giving
aid
for medication is the most effective way Collier County can help
us.
With the proper medication, we can be productive in society, pay
our
own bills, carry our own weight. Without medication relapse would
be
inevitable, and then Collier County would need to pay for a stay at
the David Lawrence Center. And not only is repeated
hospitalization
costly, it's no way for us to live. As I said, it makes a lot more
sense to help us stay stable and encourage us to pull our own
weight
by providing aid for medication, and again, I thank you.
We've got to get society to understand the facts about
neurobiological disorders. We've got to break the stereotypes.
We've
got to put neurobiological disorders in the same category as other
chronic physical illnesses. We've got to put aside irrational fear
and see neurobiological disorders in the light of clear reason.
Thank
you.
And I would like for all of you to have a complimentary
copy of a book I wrote on manic depression that AMI has printed for
us, so I'll bring that up for you at this time.
(Applause)
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 6-12, 1996 AS NATIONAL 4-H WEEK -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next proclamation. I believe
Commissioner Matthews has that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. Is Cartie Falls here, and
Jordan Krumbine? I'm very pleased today to read a proclamation and
offer it to the board on behalf of the 4-H. You want to come up a
little closer and turn around.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have to turn around because the
television camera's out there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A proclamation.
Whereas, the goal of 4-H is to provide opportunities for
the youth in Collier County in the areas of leadership,
citizenship,
personal development, and practical skills; and
Whereas, these activities have resulted in learning
experiences and accomplishments that have received state and
national
recognition; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County feels this 4-H program contributes to the overall
development
of our youth; and
Whereas, the 4-H members receive inspiration and
guidance from interested parents, professional cooperative
extension
service workers and volunteer adult and teen leaders, and support
from
many community organizations and businesses.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October
6
through 12, 1996, be designated as National 4-H Week.
Done and ordered this 8th day of October 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
acceptance. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
(Applause)
MS. FALLS: Hi. I'm Cartie Falls, a member of the 4-H
County Council, secretary of Golden Gate 4-H Club, and a seventh
grader at Gulfview Middle School.
MR. KRUHBINE: I'm Jordan Krumbine, secretary of County
Council, and a member of the Prime Time Players 4-H. I'm home
school.
MS. FALLS: On behalf of the 4-H Club members, we would
like to thank the commission, our extension agents, civic clubs,
businesses, Collier County personnel, the public schools, and 4-H
volunteers for your time, support, and commitment to youth
development
through 4-H.
Throughout the past year approximately 2,000 boys and
girls ages 5 through 18 and their families throughout the county
from
all backgrounds have learned -- many learning experiences
throughout
participation in traditional 4-H Clubs, special interest programs,
camps, workshops, and leadership programs. Over 300 adults
volunteer
their time to make these opportunities possible.
4-H emphasizes practical skills, public speaking, record
keeping, and knowledge in a wide variety of project areas. The
most
popular projects were in animal science, citizenship and
leadership,
health and safety, individual and family resources, and
environmental
sciences. Third graders throughout the county participated in On
Your
Own, a 4-H school project that teaches children skills needed for
when
they may be home alone.
During the summer months, 4-H members camped at Camp
Cloverleaf and participated in classes in nature study and water
resources. As a 4-H Club member, I have learned how to run a
meeting,
to speak before groups, and other skills like cooking, sewing, and
money management.
MR. KRUMBINE: Teens in 4-H receive leadership
opportunities through our countywide council, junior counselor
training, the Know Your County Government Program, 4-H Legislator
held
in Tallahassee, 4-H Congress at the University of Florida, and
National 4-H Congress in Memphis.
One of our Collier County teens will represent Florida
at National 4-H Congress next month. Collier teens receive
statewide
recognition in competition in several categories including
clothing,
career exploration, media arts, fashion view, and record keeping.
Another Collier County teen won a Florida 4-H scholarship to a
college
of her choice and will be one of four youths representing Florida
at
National 4-H Conference in Washington D.C.
4-H has provided an opportunity for us to develop our
skills and knowledge in many areas, but particularly working
together
as a group, making decisions, and following through on our
responsibilities. And we have a good time doing it.
As a member of Prime Time Players, I have performed with
my club at many libraries, I've done several plays, and have done
many
PSAs for 4-H. 4-H Clubs are recognizing -- reorganizing this fall
thanks to many adults who are willing to share their time and
expertise. 4-H projects are also being conducted in classrooms.
Children are working together through 4-H to improve themselves and
our community. 4-H also collaborates with other youth-serving
agencies to provide educational and leadership experiences at after
school day-care sites.
Several clubs will be participating in the Old-fashioned
Farm Days held November 2nd and 3rd at the fairgrounds, and we hope
everyone will attend. We invite the citizens of Collier County to
join us in helping to make a positive difference. Again, thank you
for your support. We would like to present each of you with a
Partners in 4-H key ring.
(Applause)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I believe you
have some service awards next.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do. Some acts are hard to
follow and some are impossible. Those were just such wonderful
speeches. Thank you for those.
We do have service awards today, and the first for 10
years of continuing service to Collier County is to John Yonkosky.
John.
(Applause)
The next award is for 15 years of service to Collier
County in road and bridge, Franciso Llorca.
(Applause)
Item #5C1
DICK NOONS, PLANS REVIEW SPECIALIST, COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH
FOR OCTOBER, 1996
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, thank you for that, Commissioner
Hac'Kie. I -- I have an award here for our employee of the month.
Let me ask Dick Noonan to come forward.
Dick's area of expertise within the building review and
permitting department is plumbing and mechanical inspections and
plan
review. His knowledge in these fields makes him a very valuable
asset
while working with customers and co-workers. His helpful and
cordial
attitude contribute to make a pleasant work environment. Without
any
reservations he was nominated and selected as employee of the month
for October 1996.
Dick, I have here a letter for your file which reads, it
is, indeed, a pleasure for us to announce your selection as Collier
County's employee of the month for October 1996. This well-
deserved
recognition is for your valuable contributions to the county
through
your work in the community development services 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.
MR. NOONAN: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #SA1
JANUARY 14, 1997, SET AS THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT KNOWN AS ISLANDWALK DRI - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our next item is 8(A) l, to give
notice and establish a public hearing date for the DRI known as
Islandwalk DRI.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to --
since this is just simply establishing a public hearing date, I'm
going to move approval of establishment of January 9, 1997, as the
public hearing date for Islandwalk DRI.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, may I -- may I correct the date
on there?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
MR. NINO: Unfortunately, I used a 1996 calendar. The
date is January the 14th.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like I said, January 14th.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any speakers on this?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
We have a date set for that DRI hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, can we get Mr. Nino
another calendar?
Item #8B1
PETITION TH96-012 FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
TO
TRAFFIC CALM KINGS WAY WITHIN THE FOXFIRE DEVELOPMENT - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(B)(1), Petition TH 96-012,
neighborhood traffic management program for Kings Way within
Foxfire.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. For the
record my name is George Archibald with the transportation
department
of the county. Board members, Agenda Item 8(B)(1) is a report on
traffic calming petitions submitted to the county by the Foxfire
development for Kings Way. Kings Way is a minor collective roadway
that runs from State Road 84 on the south to Radio Road on the
north.
The petition was submitted with a series of goals. The
goals included attempting to discourage an increasing volume of
cut-thru traffic on Kings Way, also to reduce the speed of that
traffic to discourage improper passing where we have a double
yellow,
and also -- and probably most important of all -- to create a
little
safer roadway for the pedestrians, for bikers, and for a good
number
of people that use golf carts on that roadway.
The group out there that participated in this were very,
very active. They went through a whole series of meetings and
workshops in a relatively short period of time for the issue, and
they
came up with a consensus that's being submitted to the board today
some action steps. And the basic two action steps involve; one,
the
creation of a gateway treatment at the intersection with Radio
Road.
That involves narrowing down a relatively wide entry from two lanes
to
one lane; and then, two, putting in a raised crosswalk midblock at
the
country club entry itself.
The cost of those two items -- the real purpose of the
agenda item today -- the cost is estimated at $8,925, and staff is
recommending that we not only support this effort, but participate
with Foxfire in the implementation. And as outlined in your agenda
item, that implementation is being recommended as a split. Foxfire
would be picking up roughly $4,390 of that cost, and we would be
picking up $4,535 of that cost. And the staff would recommend that
the board approve not only the recommendations that have come out
of
the petition, but also the budget amendments that would allow
funding
and implementation of the two action plans.
CHAI~ NORRIS: Questions for Mr. Archibald?
I have one, Mr. Archibald. Have we done some traffic
calming in other neighborhoods?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we have.
CHAI~ NORRIS: Is it typical that we pick up half the
cost as the county?
MR. ARCHIBALD: It's varied. In some cases depending
upon what was being done -- and I can site a number of examples.
Where we implement traffic calming as the result of a road
resurfacing
program, we typically pick up the cost, because there's no real
added
cost. Where, in fact, we're performing some divertar or some other
traffic-calming action that really only benefits a very small
number
of people, we would ask them to pick up the total cost. In this
particular case, there's some benefit both countywide and to the
residential area itself. So as a result the staff was recommending
some splitting of the total cost with the share that the county is
providing being primarily man-hours and some materials.
CHAI~ NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do we have public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I have one, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples,
speaking for myself. It seems as though the county now is going
along
with, supposedly, this traffic calming thing on Kings Way. We only
have one road left then, through Countryside, going north-south
between Radio Road and Davis. If you drive from Airport-Pulling
east,
the first intersection, the first road to go north to Radio Road,
is
Foxfire. If you -- if you're going to discourage traffic going
that
-- through there, the next road going north-south from Davis to
Radio
or vice versa is Countryside. And then the next one after that is
Santa Barbara, because the Embassy Woods is a gated community so,
therefore, you cannot go north-south on that road.
So you have to travel at least three -- at least three
miles going east from Airport-Pulling on Davis to Santa Barbara to
go
north toward Radio Road, because Santa Barbara dead-ends at Davis.
So
you only have a -- you can only go north from -- from Davis to
Santa
Barbara -- on -- on Santa Barbara to Radio Road. You're making it
extremely difficult for people to travel in that area in Collier
County; therefore, I refute Mr. Archibald's statement that it's
going
-- that it would -- going and making it easier for people to
travel
around Collier County. I don't understand it.
To me it's not a question of money or dollars; it's a
question of -- of making -- or letting traffic flow easily and
smoothly between various destinations. And the more you put blocks
or
calming or traffic-deterring things in the way of -- of the
motorists
traveling to and from various areas, the more you're going to tie
up
traffic. I -- I don't see any sense in this. And to say that golf
carts -- it -- that it's going to make it safer for people in golf
carts to ride on the road -- if that's a county road, why are golf
carts driving on that county road? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because they were permitted in
the original PUD.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick comment. I
think the primary goal, Gil, of traffic calming is to slow down
traffic and to make it safer, not to prohibit traffic from going
through. And I think the idea of just creating the visual effect
of a
nattower entryway on the Radio Road end is so you don't go wheeling
in
like you might see over by Royal Wood or over by Lely where it's a
wide-open entrance. I know when my wife lived in there, some of
the
traffic turns were -- were wild. As -- as far as the gradual bump
the pedestrian passway over near the clubhouse, there's about a
half-mile-long straightaway there. And what they're trying to do
is
just slow the traffic down, because right now if you go in and take
a
look there, people just kind of (indicating) down that
straightaway.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, they have -- they have deputies
positioned there at certain times during the day giving out
speeding
tickets. I've seen them there myself.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They do. Again, my point,
though, is simply that this isn't in any way prohibiting traffic
from
going through.
MR. ERLICHMAN: I didn't say -- I didn't say that --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just urging them to slow
down.
MR. ERLICHMAN: I didn't say that, Mr. Constantine. I
said it's -- it's actually deterring traffic. I didn't say it's --
it's stopping it, because you're going to try and get through --
you're going to try and use the road that's the easiest road to
travel, and I'm not talking about going 50 or 60 miles an hour on a
30-mile-limit road. We're talking about slowing this traffic down
to
the point where you might create traffic jam-ups as is being done
right now on -- on Davis with the -- the -- the way that they're
repaying and blocking the traffic, east-west traffic flow, on Davis
and preventing people from going in and out of the Kings Lake
Shopping
Center, which is absolutely stupid. They blocked off one of two
entrances so that people now have to drive through the -- the Kings
Way -- the Kings Lake residential area to get into the -- to get
into
the shopping center. So I think the -- the road -- the -- our road
department is doing a disservice both to the people that live in
the
Kings Lake area and the people that live in East Naples if they go
ahead with this so-called traffic calming, narrowing the road or
entrance off Radio Road. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, what is the speed
limit on Kings Way?
MR. ARCHIBALD: The speed limit is 25 miles per hour,
and we have gone ahead and already implemented a series of
restrictions to include a double yellow to prohibit passing and
also
prohibitions on certain sized trucks. But, again, as you all
outlined, the biggest issue here is speed, the idea that we all
recognize that Kings Way is a collector roadway. We can't change
that, nor are we trying to change the classification of that
roadway.
The biggest issue, as has been outlined, is really speed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what's the design speed of
speed humps? In other words, at what safe speed can they be
crossed?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Between 20 and 25 miles per hour.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Just -- and I sense the
board's support here. I just want to say I think the board is --
is
sending a message that existing neighborhoods are important and
that
we need to look at their characteristics. If we start losing our
neighborhoods, we start losing our community, and I -- I think this
is
a good step.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion we
approve the item, particularly considering it's primarily man-hours
that we're contributing. And -- and Gil made the point that you're
going to have four lane on Davis and you already have four lane on
Radio, and that usually translates to high speed. So if we need to
create a gentle reminder to people to slow down as they go through
the
neighborhoods, as Commissioner Hancock said, I think that falls
under
our health, safety, and welfare issues that we're -- the very
reason
we're here for.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I'd like to second that
motion, but I have one -- one question for Mr. Archibald before I
do.
Mr. Erlichman mentioned a couple of other roads that are north-
south
roads. Are they also on the list for traffic calming, Countryside?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Countryside, they're considering right
now privatization. That was their traffic-calming technique.
There
are others in this particular area, both Lakewood roadways and
Kings
Lake and interconnections between the two. One that you may have
heard staff discuss is Evergreen, the connection between Kings Lake
and Lakewood, a very, very important roadway. Another one is the
connection that most of us use between Lakewood Boulevard and Palm
Drive to travel to the courthouse. So there are a series of
petitions
in this immediate area that are being focused on roadways.
Unfortunately, as was brought up today, many times these roadways
have
a dual purpose. They provide a very important roadway link, but
they
do, in fact, impact the people that live adjacent to the
thoroughfare.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. I'd like to second
the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second
then. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #882
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE PLAN FOR HUNTERS ROAD - APPROVED
WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(B)(2), a roadway
improvement and acceptance for Hunters Road.
MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Tom Conrecode from public works. This is a petition from
the
residents along Hunters Road, and the petition attempts to kind of
circumvent the HSTU process and simplify the construction and
private
-- or publification (sic) of this particular road segment. We
have
arranged for road right-of-way dedication from all the property
owners
except five now. Of those five easements that are pending, only
o~e
is at issue in the least.
The roadway is planned to be constructed by the property
owners, not the county. The county would provide for inspection in
order to ensure that the facility is developed to county standards.
And then ultimately the property owners are responsible for
upgrading
and improvements on their property associated with drainage and any
future utilities that may be provided in that particular area.
The county's total cost at this point is estimated at
about $7,000 for all the title work and staff time associated with
it. We would then incur an approximate annual operating cost of
about
$3,000 to maintain the roadway, and then there is some risk that
we've
identified in the fiscal impact for the board in the event that the
property owners -- in the event that we aren't able to acquire all
the
easements and some adverse action is brought before the county. We
think that that risk is low relative to the benefit for the
property
owners within this area. As a result, staff's recommending that
the
board accept the petition and approve the action identified in the
executive summary.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are 42 property owners
there; is that right?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And all but a handful, 37,
now have agreed to convey whatever property is necessary for this,
and
the property owners will build the road themselves?
MR. CONRECODE: They will contract it, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They'll upgrade the drainage
and utilities, whatever we need to do there?
MR. CONRECODE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only cost we'd incur is
whatever paperwork we're doing on our end to accept the --
MR. CONRECODE: Title work and staff time, principally.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I hear you say that the
county will be at risk in some way since these five property owners
have not agreed? Please explain that risk and why we should take
it.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, the -- the ownership of those
properties is currently to the center line of the road.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. CONRECODE: It's not a public right-of-way, and if
we go in or the property owners go in and improve that right-of-
way,
they could be at risk of inverse condemnation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The property owners have
agreed to pick up the tab for that, though, haven't they, for any
costs of those undecided or unwilling participants?
MR. CONRECODE: I -- I don't know what the extent of the
agreement is at this point in terms of their risk versus our risk.
In
all likelihood the suit would be brought against the county, and
then
we would have some exposure, the staff. We think that risk is
relatively minor. The outstanding property owners are out of
country
and haven't been able to produce.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill and I had that
conversation. That's why -- that's a good question, because I've
raised that question.
MR. DORRILL: You'll see in the executive summary one of
-- approach to get around that would be for us to withhold the
acceptance of the property until all of the right-of-way is
conveyed
or that we step in under some subsequent agreement and condemn the
property but then create an assessment or a taxing district to tax
the
benefiting properties for whatever costs are incurred to condemn
those
two remaining easements or rights-of-way. But that would be
subject
to a second agreement. Our recommendation would be to withhold
acceptance until such time that all of the right-of-way is conveyed
at
no fee to the county. And in the event that we have to condemn it,
then we should create a taxing district to collect the money
necessary
for the condemnation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Withholding acceptance is not going to
delay the -- the improvement of the roadway, though?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- at least for my support
that needs to be an element of the motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I agree.
MR. DORRILL: The residents are here, and they're the
only ones registered in this.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode, the five property
owners that have not come -- come to the agreement yet, what part
of
the road are they on? Are they closest or farthest away from the
nearest public road?
MR. CONRECODE: I'll ask George to come up and address
that.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The five outstanding parcels vary
throughout the roadway. Typically we're looking at 2 1/2- to
2 1/4-acre parcels; and as I recall, there were three parcels on
the
south side and two parcels on the north side, and they -- they are
spread out throughout that 1-mile length.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My -- my question is -- is --
are we in danger of having another situation similar to Lakeland
Avenue extended where we accepted property a number of years ago,
and
because the two property owners closest to the public road never
donated, we were never able to build that road.
MR. ARCHIBALD: My answer to that would be no for the
simple reason that here we have property owners that are willing to
take the next step, and that is to go ahead and construct the road
to
county standards at their cost. In regards to the right-of-way
issue,
if I could give the board just a little more level of comfort, it
should be recognized that a road right-of-way currently exists.
All
we're doing is trying to shape that into the terms that are
currently
acceptable to the county so that there is already a reservation
there. So if we're able to close on four of the five outstanding
parcels and there's one parcel remaining, there still is -- it
should
be recognized that there is a reservation; and depending upon the
amount of title work done, we may even find out that there's
already a
right-of-way that exists there. And the value of that, because the
property is already encumbered, is very, very small.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Did you say there was a
public speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, there's one. Dr. Kent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Dr. Kent, are you going to come and
talk us out of this?
MR. KENT: No. I hope not. Kriston Kent. I'm a
resident on Hunters Road, one of 16 current people who live in
houses
along the road, which on a morning like this, is nearly impassable;
but other -- other days it's not -- not so bad.
This road is, I guess, a couple of miles now from one of
the busiest corners in Naples, and I've worked, myself and Patricia
Chema (phonetic), with the transportation department for over a
year
now very closely. We've gone out and obtained all the easement
deeds
that we have obtained so far. And -- and I just rise in strong
support of this -- this item.
CHAI~ NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. KENT: And I can ask any -- answer any questions you
guys may have, any other questions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
to approve the item subject to the conditions outlined --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- by Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a pair of
seconds. Commissioner Matthews was first, I believe. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8B3
RESOLUTION 96-457 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,
SIDEWALK, SLOPE, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND/OR FEE SIMPLE TITLE FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD
BETWEEN GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (C.R. 886) AND RADIO ROAD (C.R. 856),
CIE
NO. 53 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(B)(3), a resolution
authorizing the acquisition of road right-of-way for Livingston
Road.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo
Gonzalez, you're capital projects director. This morning your
staff
is asking you to authorize the resolution to acquire right-of-way
by
gift or purchase for the Livingston Road corridor from Radio Road
to
just north of Golden Gate Parkway. The item is consistent with the
direction you gave us August -- last month regarding the timing of
the
road and the facilities to be built. I'd be glad to ask -- answer
any
questions you may have.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume by just north you mean
only intersection improvements that would go to the north, because
there's still some locational questions to be answered and a need
question to be answered north of Golden Gate Parkway. So is that -
is that the extent of it? It's just intersection improvements?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. And about 1500 feet north to
accommodate a full section to it as it tapers back to the existing
corridor.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-458 APPOINTING PATRICIA M. BAILEY TO THE PUBLIC
VEHICLE
ADVISORY COMHITTEE - ADOPTED
We -- moving right along to Item 10(A).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, we have one vacancy
and one appointment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Gosh, that's a difficult decision.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've wrestled with this one long
and hard and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion by Commissioner Hancock, second
by Commissioner Mac'Kie. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-459 APPOINTING ERIC E. BAIRD TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS
ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
10(B), appointment --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, they're looking
for one member; there is one applicant. I suggest we appoint that
applicant, Eric E. Baird.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 96-460 OPPOSING ANY STATE, FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL
EXPLORATION - ADOPTED
We'll move to Item 10(D), discussion of BCC position on
oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, and Commissioner Constantine
__
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- I would assume that you mean in the
southern gulf, not the panhandle area or --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. The Regional
Planning Council staff's doing some work on issues dealing with
this
specific exploration right now. This board in the past has passed
resolutions opposed to it; however, I don't believe it was with
this
makeup. I just wanted to reiterate and -- and reserve a resolution
and pass that on to the RPC so they can transmit that along --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you want to make that motion,
I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
MR. DORRILL: One speaker.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Ms. Krier.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Ms. Krier.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While she's coming up, I'd just
ask that the word "vehement" appear in here.
(Laughter)
MS. KRIER: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Vehemently.
MS. KRIER: For the record I'm Ellie Krier with the
Chamber/EDC Coalition. I'm just here to remind you of what you
know,
which is that the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development
Council are on record opposing any oil exploration or anything
which
can lead to it. The comment period for the -- what's driving the
Regional Planning Council is the geophysical permit for Coastal
Petroleum's public comment period closed on the 3rd, and we did
have
letters from all three agencies -- all three of our organizations
in
by the 3rd on this issue. The importance of this issue is that if
we
cannot stop the Florida waters, our congressional delegation will
have
an enormous time keeping the federal moratorium in place. So the
diligence in terms of the Florida permits is very, very large, and
__
and we just bring that to your attention and appreciate your --
your
support in the area. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Krier. Commissioner
Constantine, this covers Florida state waters?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you like to suggest
international waters or --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. But I don't -- I don't know if
we're going to have much effect on that, but
did you -- your motion anticipate that we would join in a federal
moratorium?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd be happy to include that
as part of my motion.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to ask rather than
getting Florida waters caught up in the international that we --
that
we say in the resolution "international waters and especially
Florida
state waters."
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. We can differentiate.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't see any harm in naming all
three jurisdictions, state, federal, and international. As long as
it's a resolution just to oppose the expansion of oil exploration,
I
don't see any harm in naming all three. So if that's your motion -
_
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and we have a second by --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- by Commissioner Matthews. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Do we have any public comment today?
MR. DORRILL: None that are registered.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That concludes our morning
agenda. We'll move right into our afternoon agenda.
Item #12A1
PETITION CP-96-3, DONALD A. PICKWORTH, P.A., REPRESENTING MARIS H.
GERACE, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT
AND FUTURE LAND USE HAP OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ADD 50.67
ACRES TO AND DESIGNATE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF
THE
PINE RIDGE ROAD/AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD ACTIVITY CENTER, BY PROVIDING
CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THAT ACTIVITY CENTER, AND BY PROVIDING
FOR
FUTURE SITE SPECIFIC BOUNDARIES OF OTHER ACTIVITY CETNERS - DENIED.
PETITION NOT TO BE TRANSMITTED TO DCA
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good afternoon. The first petition is
12(A)(1), Petition CP-96-3.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing?
No. I'm just kidding. I'm sorry.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David
Weeks of your comprehensive planning staff. The subject petition
before you is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This is the
first of potentially two hearings. This is a transmittal hearing,
that is, the decision whether or not to transmit this petition to
the
Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs
hearing should you recommend -- or should you approve this petition
would not actually amend the Growth Management Plan.
The objective is to amend the Growth Management Plan in
two regards. One is to designate the subject property as activity
center lands therefore making it eligible for activity center
development, that is, the full array of commercial uses,
residential
density at up to 16 units per acre, and institutional uses or a
mixture of those three. And secondly, it would pave the way for
future site-specific activity center boundary changes.
The subject property is identified on the exhibit on the
wall and is also shown in your executive summary packet. That's on
the east side of Airport-Pulling Road just south of Pine Ridge Road
immediately below the Carillon PUD. It abuts the Carillon Shopping
Center as well as the undeveloped residential portion of Carillon.
It
also abuts residential properties -- PUDs to the east and south.
And
across the street to the west is the Naples Bath and Tennis PUD,
also
a residential project.
The project contains approximately 51 acres. It is
located in the Central Naples planning community, but it abuts the
North Naples planning community, which begins at Pine Ridge Road.
Again, I want to emphasize this is only to determine the
appropriateness of the land-use designation change. This is not a
fezone petition.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question about that.
Procedurally today if this -- if this were to -- to get -- I guess,
three votes is what they would need today to move forward.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What happens? I mean, we send
this to DCA, and DCA then can voice objections or -- or waive their
right to object, and then it comes back in a fezone and comes back
in
a comp plan amendment at that time. So there's at least one more,
probably two more, hearings after this if it goes forward?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And the next step will be
for this to come back before the board to actually amend the
Comprehensive Plan, and then the rezoning petition would -- would
have
to occur subsequently.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So basically today is to send it
to DCA and ask for their comments if it were to get favorable
approval
today?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And I would say to show an
initial endorsement of the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, then would it be to
the board's benefit today to hear only testimony regarding whether
or
not this meets the -- the elements of change to the Growth
Management
Plan as opposed to potential project-specific guidelines? If so,
if
the board feels that way, I'd like to instruct both staff and the
petitioner to confine their comments to those areas.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that -- particularly
since that's all we can do today, that certainly makes sense that
that's all we should hear. There's no sense to hear things we
can't
decide.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- that would be my feeling as
well. If we're discussing simply a potential change to our -- our
plan today, let's -- let's confine the comments to that.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. We'd note that the existing activity
center for which the site is -- is abutting and is proposed to be
added to has already been expanded once during the rezoning of the
Carillon PUD. If this land is added it will double --
approximately
double the size of this activity center.
The concerns that staff has regarding this petition have
to do with the amount of -- of commercial that potentially would be
allowed on the site if this is added to an activity center or the
amount of residential -- the impact of the intensity of this
development at this location as is noted in your executive summary
page 3. Within this activity center, currently existing or under
construction, is over 700,000 square feet of floor area for
commercial
uses. And if you go approximately a third of a mile to the north
of
-- of Pine Ridge Road to the Pine Air Lakes project, the current
site
of the Hollywood 20 Theatre, there's an additional 957,000 square
feet
of commercial approved, for a total within this activity center and
within short proximity to the north of 1.67 million square feet of
__
of commercial development.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Can you say that
one more time, please? That 1.6 is still available or that's the
total?
MR. WEEKS: That's the total amount of both existing and
potential -- available commercial to be developed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pine Air Lakes had nine
hundred fifty-seven?
MR. WEEKS: 957,000 square feet, approximately 43,000
square feet developed or --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Over 900,000 square feet?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That's correct. A few
points that staff would make is -- is the type of project that is
proposed or has been discussed is a mixed-use project. That is
allowed in activity centers right now. Each of the activity
centers
-- there's 21 of them in the county -- permit a mixed-use
development, a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The
difference under -- under the existing scenario being designated
urban
residential, this project -- this site could be developed with a
project containing up to eight dwelling units per acre. That would
generate approximately 2600 trips per day on the adjacent roadways.
If the project were developed commercially, that would be far
exceeded. One scenario depicted by the petitioner would generate
approximately 10,000 trips per day on the adjacent roadways for a
difference of about 7400 trips per day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me get that again. If it
were developed residentially versus commercially, there's an
additional 7400 car trips a day?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what's the capacity of that
intersection? What is the total number?
MR. WEEKS: I'll defer to George Archibald.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Well, I want to know that
at some point.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'm sorry to ask the
same question, but I didn't -- I didn't understand. Which
situation
has 7400 more?
MR. WEEKS: If it is developed with a mixed-use project
as the petitioner has described in the traffic impact analysis.
They're not committed to that. They're not required to do it that
way, but that's one development scenario, a mixture of commercial
and
residential. And that would generate 7400 trips per day more than
what the existing designation allows.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence, a quadrupling of the
residential number.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- and that was a very important
statement that you just made that they wouldn't be required to do
this
project. The action we're taking today simply is to -- a proposal
to
begin the process of expanding that activity center.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not project specific.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. The language that has been
submitted by the petitioner does not tie them into a certain
development scenario.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: The Evaluation and Appraisal Report
completed earlier this year on our Growth Management Plan does --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Dave, I'm sorry.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've just got to ask you one more
question.
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it possible to submit a
specific development scenario in a comp plan amendment? I mean,
could
they -- could we ask them today to -- to commit to this project and
nothing else, because I'm not willing to talk about anything but
this. If -- would it have been possible for them to have
committed?
MR. WEEKS: That -- that could be done as part of the --
since -- since this is a specific location, it is possible to have
specific criteria, specific standards for development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weeks, I've got a question
as well. Is it -- is it possible that in the transmittal
information
that the petitioner can commit to reconfiguring the activity center
so
in the end it's not a whole lot bigger than the current activity
center, because there's -- there's a substantial amount of acreage
that's only residential.
MR. WEEKS: That -- that is a possibility. For example,
to remove the residential portion of the Carillon PUD to the north,
remove the YMCA. I would submit to you, though, that the result of
that is going to make this activity center less of a mixed-use
activity center. That is the intent behind the mixed -- behind the
activity center concept is to have a mixture of uses. So if you
pull
out the noncommercial uses and then turn around and add more, the
balance has -- either hasn't changed or, in fact, we've got more
commercial and less noncommercial uses in the activity center. But
to
answer your question simply, yes, we can do that. I mean, the
activity center boundaries can be reconfigured and eliminate other
noncommercial uses from it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But my -- my concern is merely
opening the door to property owners coming in and asking for an
expansion of an existing activity center where if they -- if we can
reconfigure the center with a different set of boundaries, we
really
haven't altered it that greatly.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that -- that was persuasive
to me too. As a matter of fact, I met -- and I'll use this for my
disclosure opportunity if it's necessary, or are we quasi-judicial
right now? I have met with the petitioners and had some
information
from them but will base my decision solely on the information
presented to the board today.
But in that -- in that information that was presented to
me, one of -- one of the graphs was reduction of activity center so
that the net effect was that the size of this activity center would
be
less than originally drawn. That's -- when you said -- when you
described it as doubling the activity center, that was a big
surprise
to me when they have numbers that say the net effect on a
reconfiguration, as Commissioner Matthews was describing, could be
even a smaller actual activity center than originally drawn.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That takes -- that makes an
assumption that activity centers are corner to corner, a block of
solid commercial. The intent of activity centers in our Growth
Management Plan is to encourage mixed uses and transitional uses on
their perimeter from high intensity commercial to a multifamily-
type
use and integrate them. So what you're being told is -- is not --
doesn't really take into account the -- the element that we propose
in
activity centers, which is the mixed-use concept. They're not
supposed to be 100 percent maximum commercial within the boundaries
of
the activity center. So I think Mr. Weeks was referring to a
geographic doubling in a sense as opposed to an intensity aspect.
But
I think those two concepts are getting mixed a little bit in the
information you're receiving, because I -- I heard the same thing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's let our -- our staff continue
their presentation here for a moment and see if maybe some of these
questions will be answered.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, to -- to
respond further to your question, when I said the size would be
doubled, I'm referring to the southeast quadrant -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: -- not the entire activity center.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Additionally, there are more lands proposed
for commercial. They have not come before you yet for review, but
there is -- I'm sure you're aware of the proposed regional mall at
the
southeast quadrant of U.S. 41 and Immokalee Road. That proposal is
to
add 1.3 million square feet of -- of commercial uses as well as a
250-room hotel on about 142 acres. I think that's important to
note,
even though it's not something you've seen; it's not something
you've
approved. That -- in considering this request, that would have the
potential to add more commercial.
There's another project already in the pipeline, a
rezoning request, a DRI request. That -- presumably, that should
be
coming to you before you actually would adopt, if you so choose,
this
amendment to the Growth Management Plan. I think that's important
for
your consideration.
One other point that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
makes for the Comprehensive Plan is that we do look at activity
centers, and we do consider changing the boundaries to, number one,
have site-specific boundaries; number two, to possibly expand some
of
the activity centers. But the EAR goes on to say that that would -
_
should be applied to activity centers that are less than 50 percent
developed. This activity center is 81 percent developed.
There is also a commercial land-use study that is
presently under way, which is one of the directives of our EAR, to
consider the amounts of commercial needed, the location, and the
types
of commercial development that is needed. And staff would submit
that
it's -- it's premature to make a decision to add land to an
activity
center until we've completed that study.
I want to stress, again, that it's -- in staff's
opinion, this activity -- this subject property can be developed
right
now under the urban residential designation as it exists at up to
eight units per acre. And that would be a use that would be less
intense than the activity center development, it will be a use that
will generate less traffic, and it is a use that will be compatible
with the surrounding properties. Staff's recommendation, then, has
been that you not transmit this to DCA or the Regional Planning
Council. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition, however,
September 19th and disagreed with staff. They unanimously
recommended
that you do transmit this petition, and they proposed some
additional
language to that submitted by the applicant to read as follows:
Any
fezone shall have a close relationship between commercial and
residential. That was their recommendation. That's found on page
3
of your executive summary.
There's been one letter received after the Planning
Commission hearing, and that was by the North Naples -- excuse me,
the
Second District Association, the Property Owners Association of
North
Collier County, objecting to this petition.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Do we have the petitioner
now to make a short presentation?
MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members
of the commission. I'm Don Pickworth representing the petitioner.
I
have with me today the other people who are working with us on
this:
Our transportation consultant, Bill Oliver, from Tindale-Oliver and
Associates; our planner, Michael Fernandez; the property owner '-
at
actually the representative of the property owner, Wallace Lewis,
is
here. The property is actually owned by both Mr. Lewis and other
members of his family, various relatives. All the people who own
this
property are all direct relatives of Mr. Lewis.
We find ourselves in a little bit of a catch-22 here,
because we -- we filed this amendment for the purpose of doing a
very
specific development, and in the Comprehensive Plan, there is no
other
land-use designation we can ask for but activity center. I submit
to
you that -- that what we're planning to do is -- is totally
different
than anything that's found in any of your activities -- at any of
your
activity centers right now, different than anything I submit that
you
are likely to find in any of your activity centers in the future.
But
we have to work within the plan as it stands, and so we have to ask
for an activity center designation.
With regard to the issue of recanfiguring the activity
center, we have -- it's true that -- that parts of our project are
clearly nonactivity-center uses. They're straight residential at a
density of, you know, less than the activity center density. It
could
be built, you know, just under the density band. Other parts are
clearly commercial activity center uses. Other parts of the
project
are both residential and residential above commercial. So we
haven't
really progressed to the point of figuring out how we draw those
lines, but if -- if we are transmitted and if you ultimately
approve a
-- a development plan for this project, then we could probably at
that point draw some lines. But we -- we chose at this -- this
point
not to try to -- to draw those lines.
As I say, our purpose here is to do a very specific
development. And we understand that the only thing that's at issue
here before you today is whether to transmit this plan amendment
and
to have DCA take a look at it. By the same token, the matter will
come back before you in several months, and we would expect it will
come back before you much as many of your DRIs with camp plan
amendments and other things of that type come before you where you
have two or three items which are combined for hearing, which would
be
both the camp plan amendment and the -- and the development plan.
We try to differ, again, because what we're asking to do
here is -- is a little bit different than what's been asked for
before. We -- we kind of approach it a couple different ways, and
I'll be honest. I -- I'm not sure that one is right and the other
is
wrong. And there's probably a number of different ways you can do
it,
because I think you get to the same point at the end. We started
with
a simple amendment that said activity centers -- just some language
that says except as -- their boundaries will be as set forth except
if
they've been reconfigured by an amendment to the plan. We then had
some discussions with staff about, well, should we, instead, make
it a
very long and specific amendment that describes a lot of
development
standards. And, of course, the problem there is you spend -- you'd
spend the next three months arguing over what that language is
instead
of actually doing a development plan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So did you consider submitting a
comp plan amendment with this specific plan and that -- that choice
was rejected? Are you willing to --
MR. PICKWORTH: At the time -- at the time we submitted
the comp plan amendment, obviously the plan had not evolved to the
point that it has evolved today. It is my expectation that when
the
matter comes on for final hearing for adoption, at that time
there's
going to be a very, very specific development plan, much different
than the type of development plan you normally see in a PUD. That
development plan can be incorporated directly into the final
adopted
version of the comp plan amendment so that if the developer -- once
the developer walks out of there with his development rights, it's
not
just a PUD that he can ask for an amendment of, but it's actually
written into the Comprehensive Plan. We will be at that level of
confidence, because the type of development we're doing is a very,
very site specific, extremely specific development, and -- and
there's
not going to be any room to do something else anyway, so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At this -- at this point,
you've laid your framework. Can we get into the substance of why
you
think there should be a change in the activity center? I mean,
we've
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, sir. I'll -- I think there should
be a change for two reasons, and I'm going to ask Mr. Fernandez to
explain it in -- in some detail. I think the reason there ought to
be
a change is because in this -- in this community for many, many
years,
we have had the same concerns about our activity centers, the way
they've developed, that we use the word "mixed use." Mixed use has
become nothing more than -- you know, you have the Y in this one,
so
it's mixed use. You have the community facility there. There are
no
integrated developments, even though there's been a -- a
considerable
discussion over the desirability of that.
We have discussed things like community focal point. We
have discussed things like -- like true neighborhood concepts where
you integrate residential and commercial living in one cohesive
development. We have talked in terms of integrating our -- our
commercial developments with surrounding properties. When's the
last
time someone come in here to build an -- a commercial development
and
activity center and you had neighboring developments want to
connect
to it? Most of them want to put walls and barbed wire up.
And -- and so we're asking for this because we believe
that the community wants a development of this type. This is
clearly
the right location for a development of this type. The activity
centers -- if you think about it, the activity center concept has
in
-- in practice ended up being nothing more than a license to build
big -- big box retail strip-type of centers. And if you think
about
it, that's what you've gotten in all of the activity centers since
this was put into effect back in 1989.
The fact of the matter is that your typical activity
center will not accommodate a development of this type. It's not
properly located; it's not big enough. So whether you do it here
or
do it somewhere else, I believe that an amendment to the
Comprehensive
Plan to accommodate it is going to be necessary, and we have here
the
ideal site for a development of this type. With that I'll -- I'll
turn it over to Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Oliver and then answer any
questions at the end. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael
Fernandez representing the petitioner, from Planning Development,
Incorporated. Trying to focus mostly on the Growth Management Plan
amendment that we're speaking of, we would have absolutely no
problem
submitting as part of that comp plan amendment this concept plan as
part of that submittal that goes to the Department of Community
Affairs. We'd have no problem doing that whatsoever, because we're
confident that's the direction that we're going in. We also have
the
same graphic with labels on it that depict what the elements of the
project are, and we certainly can incorporate that if that would
give
additional comfort to the commissioners that what we're proposing
is
truly a mixed-use project. It's a very site-specific project that
has
a lot of positive attributes.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll just go ahead and say right
here that that's the only thing I'm even willing to discuss,
because
I'm not willing to just expand that activity center boundary for
another big box. But -- but I would be -- you know, this is an
interesting enough plan to look at.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Let me -- let me go ahead and tell you
the first -- the first issue that came up when we did this project,
of
course, was transportation, traffic impacts. This is one of the
busiest intersections in our community. And I'm going to turn it
over
to Bill Oliver right now, our transportation consultant, to address
the magnitude of the impacts that would be imposed by a project as
the
one that we're describing.
I would tell you that before we hired Bill Oliver, we
had Agnoli, Barber and Brundage produce a traffic analysis that
looked
at the before-and-after conditions of Carillon and Pine Ridge
Crossings. We determined those impacts, and we extrapolated them
for
the commercial element of our project, and we came up with a number
that we were comfortable with. However, that number was unsettling
relative to the issue of the impact fee ordinance and the
provisions
it allows for. We then hired Tindale-Oliver specifically because
they
had produced your impact fee ordinance. They're very familiar with
it
and its provisions, and with that level of comfort, we asked them
to
look at it. And I'll let Bill explain the results of his analysis.
MR. OLIVER: Good morning. My name is Bill Oliver. I
am a registered engineer in Florida in traffic and transportation
planning. I've been practicing in Florida for about the past 17
years
doing specifically land development type of work.
We were retained by Planning Development, Inc., to
evaluate the transportation implications of this proposed land-use
plan amendment. But before we did our analysis, we met with the
county transportation staff. We talked about what would be the
best
way to look at the implications of this change, and what made the
most
sense to us was to take the recently adopted long-range
transportation
plan of your community that was adopted this past December, apply
the
same tools that were applied to estimate those transportation
demands
and needs, and apply it to this amendment.
We think we've done a fairly conservative application of
that, because we have simply taken this development and have added
it
to all the land-use assumptions that that plan is already based on.
We could have argued that we should remove the residential
dwellings
that could otherwise be developed on this site; however, we made
the
assumption that if -- if we didn't or that if this site was
approved
as it's been designed, those residential dwellings -- well, part of
them would be on our site, but part of them would probably just
have
developed, perhaps, somewhere else in the vicinity. So we've taken
that approach. We've tried to take a fairly conservative approach
in
how we approached this.
We -- we took -- we added this development to your land
development projections for the year 2020. We evaluated it in the
light of your cost-feasible transportation plan, and what we've
found
is that even with the addition of this development, that the roads
that you have identified as necessary in your transportation plan
will
still be adequate. There is enough capacity available within the
scope of what you have already determined you can -- that you can
implement to accommodate this development and still maintain the
level
of service standards that you've adopted.
The county's transportation staff has reviewed our work,
and they have concurred in a memorandum which Mr. Archibald has
transmitted to the planning department on September 17th of this
year. And another thing that we found as a part of that analysis
was
that this particular corner, the south -- southeast corner, turns
out
to be one of the better corners to put this type of development on.
And the reason for that is that the majority of the trips that will
be
coming to the site, 55 percent of them, will be coming either from
the
east, from -- from the 1-75 direction along Pine Ridge Road, or
from
the south, along Airport Road and will be able to come into this
development without the need to go through the Pine Ridge Road and
Airport Road intersection. That --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Say that again. They'd come up
Airport Road and turn in before they got to the intersection? Is
that
basically what you're saying?
MR. OLIVER: The majority of those trips would, 35
percent from the south, 20 percent from the east. And, again,
those
distributions are based upon the land-use data that your staff has
developed to develop that transportation plan.
We also -- and that was important to us, or we thought
that was relevant -- that would be relevant to you all, because we
understand that there have been problems perceived at the
intersection
of Airport Road and Pine Ridge Road. So we also went ahead and did
__
looked at some of the short-term implications of this -- of this
development on the existing road system. We've observed -- we've -
- I
went out and looked at the intersection and watched it operate
during
the evening rush hour.
Coincidentally, I happened to also meet some county
transportation staff at the same time and spoke with them about
what
had been going on historically at the intersection. From what I
understand, there was apparently a problem where traffic would back
up
from the traffic signal on Pine Ridge Road at the YMCA. Traffic
would
-- the timing and the coordination of those two signals was not as
good as it should have been. Traffic was actually backing up into
the
intersection of Pine Ridge Road at Airport Road causing problems
there. I understand adjustments have been made to the signal
timings,
and that situation, he believed, was operating better. When I was
out
there, I did not see any problems along those lines at all.
But what I did observe was something else. If you --
that intersection is not operating at its full potential at the
present time. As you approach the intersection if you're driving
towards the intersection from the south, if you're coming up from
the
county center going up to Pine Ridge Road, there are three lanes
that
go up to the intersection. On the far side of the intersection,
there's three lanes to receive those lanes, but they quickly merge
down to two lanes. The same thing happens as you go eastbound
towards
the interstate. As you drive up to the intersection, there are
three
lanes. On the far side of the intersection, it nets right down to
two
lanes.
As a result, people, as they approach the intersection,
get into the two lanes that continue straight through. They don't
make use of that third lane. I mean, you can literally go out and
stand in that lane in rush hour. After the -- after the first four
or
five cars go by, you can literally stand in that lane, and you're
not
going to get hit. People just don't use those lanes. So you're
getting about 80 percent of the efficiency and capacity out of that
intersection that you should be getting.
You've got two -- two improvements scheduled in your
capital program to begin in 1999, I believe, the six laning of
Airport
Road north of Pine Ridge and the six laning of Pine Ridge Road
eastward towards the interstate. Once those improvements are
implemented, you will have the three continuous through lanes and
the
-- the third lane, that third through lane, should be utilized
more
effectively. So we see that there are -- even though there is some
congestion existing today, we see improvements coming down the line
that should be -- that will help to accommodate and improve the
efficiency of traffic movement.
The other thing I'd like to do is kind of leave a
perspective on the order of magnitude that this project is.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you -- you raised a question -- or I think
the
staff presented that there would be an additional 7600 new trips
generated by the development or brought to -- brought into this
location. When you deal with traffic, there's all kinds of numbers
people throw around, so you have to be careful so that you're
comparing apples and apples. The 7600 new daily trips needs to be
measured or compared against a daily capacity number of two hundred
fifty -- or 231,200 vehicles per day of capacity on those roads.
Of
those 7600 trips, 35 percent are going to be coming from the south,
20
percent from the east -- we've written down the numbers -- other
percentages from the north and the west. So if you look at the
capacity of the roads in those four directions, that adds up to
over
230,000 cars a day. Those 7600 trips will use about 3.3 percent of
that capacity.
Another way of looking at it was -- is to look at the --
at the impact that this development has on the intersection, its
operation, during the rush hour. We have -- we have estimated that
impact and quantified it in terms of how many seconds of delay.
The
additional trips or the -- actually, all the trips that are going
to
be attracted to this shopping center, the portion of them -- the 45
percent of them that will go through this intersection, will
increase
delay by about 1.9 seconds.
Even in the intersections I'm most familiar with as I
drive to and from home, I've never gone home ever I don't think in
my
life and told my wife, "By golly, that intersection, I was there
for
an extra 1.9 seconds today." You just don't notice it. As a
matter
of fact, from day to day you wouldn't notice if you were -- well,
you
might from day to day -- that you were -- got stuck by a -- by a
long
red or something like that. But you encounter that kind of
variation
on a day-to-day basis, on a routine basis. You just don't notice
it.
Another way of looking at it would be to take the --
take the direction -- say on Airport Road south of the site.
That's
where we're going to send the most of our traffic. Thirty-five
percent of our traffic is -- we think is going to be coming from
the
south. If you convert that back to the evening rush hour, the time
period when we're generating the majority of our trips, we're going
to
be sending about 120 trips in each direction on that road. Over
the
course of an hour, 120 trips, that's one car about every 28
seconds.
That's a long time when you're -- when you're standing on a road
looking at a car.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Help me with this just a
second, because you said, I think it was, 7600 a day on average.
MR. OLIVER: Increase.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Increase.
MR. OLIVER: That's the -- that's the net increase, yes,
sir. In other words, there is development that could go there.
This
change will allow an additional 7600 daily trips.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When I do my math, that
doesn't come out to a hundred and twenty an hour. It doesn't even
come close to a hundred and twenty an hour, and I've got to assume
rush hour has more than 3 a.m., and I'm dividing by 24 hours so --
MR. OLIVER: Let me walk you through the numbers. Of
the 7600 trips, 35 percent are going to be coming from the south.
Of
that -- well, here. I've got a calculator. Let me just run
through
them again. Of the 7600, 35 percent from the south on a daily
basis
is 2660. About 10 percent of those will be occurring in the
evening
rush hour. That turns out to be about 266 trips in each direction.
It's about a 50/50 directional split, so that's about a hundred and
thirty-three in each direction during the rush hour.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Help me how we assume,
because you -- you've taken away those coming from the south; is
that
correct? You've taken those out of the equation because they won't
actually come to the intersection. They'll --
MR. OLIVER: Okay. I think I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I --
MR. OLIVER: I probably lost you a little bit in -- in
where I was going to. I was going -- I was suggesting that if we
look
at the -- if we look at the single road -- of the four, you know,
roads that come into this intersection, if we look at the single
road,
Airport Road to the south where we put the most of our traffic,
which
is the traffic that comes from our site and goes to the south.
I've
shifted away from the intersection for now. I'm just saying if
you'll
look at the single road where we send most of -- bring most of our
trips in to the south, we'll be adding, essentially, one new car
every
28 seconds during the evening rush hour.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I heard you say that. I
still don't understand how you got there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- that's the cars just
coming from the south up Airport Road?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- it's just --
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- one small portion. It -- let
me see if I've gotten it. If -- the majority of your impact will
be
cars at rush hour coming from the south on Airport Road toward the
area, and that greatest impact is one car every 2 seconds, but --
MR. OLIVER: Every 28.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- just in that one segment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's -- 35 percent of your
traffic I thought you said is coming from the south.
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that's not the majority.
You just said the majority.
MR. OLIVER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The majority is not coming
from the south.
MR. OLIVER: There's -- there's four directions of
approach: From the north, from the west, from the east, and from
the
south.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's important to me --
MR. OLIVER: The single --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- are the total of how many
will be coming. I don't care what direction they're coming from.
What's the impact on the road system totally? I don't want to know
there's a hundred and twenty from the south, the next number from
the
north. What's the total impact?
MR. OLIVER: Three point three percent.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. In real car numbers.
You've just said one car every 28 seconds from the south.
MR. OLIVER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That doesn't mean anything if
there's 27 cars every 28 seconds from the north, so what's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the total number?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the total number?
MR. OLIVER: The total number in the rush hour?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. OLIVER: It's approximately 10 percent of the
daily. So it would be -- if there's 7600 new daily trips, 10
percent
would be about 760 trips in the evening rush hour.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Say that last
part again, please.
MR. OLIVER: Okay. I think we're missing here a little
bit. The rush -- the evening rush hour trips are about 10 percent
of
the daily trips. For retail land uses, that's characteristic. So
if
there's 7600 new daily trips, it would be 760 in the evening rush
hour.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As opposed to with just
residential development 200 or something?
MR. OLIVER: Four hundred and -- four hundred and eight
units, I believe, was the number of units, about four hundred.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I think what our staff
said is this would be 7400 or 7600 additional over the residential.
MR. OLIVER: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought
residential was 2600, and then --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it is, but then add
whatever it is to that. Their number is 7400 or 7600 or something
like that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So the project's going to
generate 10,000 trips a day?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten thousand trips?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ten thousand new trips -- ten thousand
and one new trips.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I got it now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I won't drive by. We'll take
it down to an even 10,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'd like to bring this back
up to what I'm going to call the real numbers. Saying, you know, a
1.9 second delay -- when you break anything down to its smallest
element, you've really trivialized the impact. That's like saying,
you know, you paid $20,000 a year in taxes. Well, it's only 4
cents
an hour, so who cares. But in the end I pay $20,000 a year in
taxes
to the federal government, so I care about that 4 cents an hour
when
it -- it adds up to a year. So 1.9 seconds for every single car,
every single day, every single week of every single year adds up --
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't tell me no, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's peak hour.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't care. You've trivialized
the impact. That's the point. Three hundred and thirty
multifamily
units is 7.4 trips per day. Is that still the ITE standard for
multifamily?
MR. OLIVER: I'm sorry. I was thinking of something --
something else, but go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: ITE standard for multifamily.
MR. OLIVER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it 7.4?
MR. OLIVER: Six point one to seven point -- I think --
six point one is what I'm familiar with.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the low end?
MR. OLIVER: No, for multifamily units.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Six point one, that's
three hundred and thirty units. So we have 2,000 trips a day that
the
multifamily that is currently anticipated would -- would create;
right? So what you're telling me is that on -- on a daily basis
8,000
cars a day is all that 320,000 square feet of commercial is going
to
create.
MR. OLIVER: That would be the additional trips brought
to the area, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Additional trips over what?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Over the 2,000 you just said.
MR. OLIVER: The -- the land-use plan amendment will
permit development of four-hundred-and-some-odd residential units.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. OLIVER: Okay. When you --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many total trips is your
project going to generate?
MR. OLIVER: Start from the top. There --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am starting from the top. It's
my question. How many trips is your total project going to
generate
on a daily basis?
MR. OLIVER: Sixteen thousand trips will be coming in
and out of the driveways.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because that -- the number
I heard was compare 2400 versus 10,000. The real number here is
compare that 2400 versus 16,000.
MR. OLIVER: No -- no, sir. That's not correct, because
the retail land uses will also capture trips that -- some of those
16,000 trips are already on the road system.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is my favorite. This is the
40 percent capture rate you're using; right?
MR. OLIVER: Your impact fee ordinance recognizes that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Capture rate means these are cars
that would be out there whether -- they're out there today.
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're saying the
additional 10,000 was the appropriate comparison.
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir. Actually --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Merely an additional 10,000
cars a day.
MR. OLIVER: Actually, the 10,000 are new, but they also
need to be balanced against what the site could -- is permitted
current -- under its current planning designation to generate as
well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is 2400.
MR. OLIVER: The net increase -- that's right. So the
-- so that then the implication of the land-use plan amendment is
the
7600. That's where the 7600 number comes from. The 10,000 is --
is
the new trips that would come to the site before the current
developable land has been considered.
Let me also respond, though, Commissioner Hancock, to
your comment. I don't think we've trivialized the impact. The
standard way of evaluating roadway performance, the way you measure
the performance of your road system, is tied to that peak hour. So
when we say that the increase is 1.9 -- in delay is 1.9 seconds,
that
is the delay, you're right, to each vehicle. But that's what
relates
to the individual person who drives through that intersection, and
that is the standard you use when you measure the performance of
your
road system. So that's why we chose that measurement.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no standard in our entire
county plan, transportation plan, that talks about average seconds
during peak hour. That's my point. My point is that we measure
things in a certain way, and we expect those comparisons apples and
apples. It's difficult to take 1.9 seconds and make that mean
anything when we're used to comparing peak number of trips. That
was
my point.
MR. OLIVER: Actually, you do, but I think I'll leave it
there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd like to say that we've addressed all
of your transportation concerns, and what we've shown you is that
this
project will not have a significant impact on your roadway system,
in
part because it does have access both to Pine Ridge and Airport
Road,
and therefore it will actually remove some trips that actually go
through that intersection.
Additionally, something that's very important to
consider that we don't -- and don't have a formula for taking
credit
for is that what we've proposed is that we be able to integrate the
adjacent land-owners. We've talked to Kensington. We've talked to
World Tennis Center. We've also talked to Timberwood. We have
members -- some Timberwood residents are here today to speak
favorably
on the project; Kensington is on their way. We have a letter from
World Tennis Center that was just delivered, and we met with their
residents yesterday, their board as well as their -- the members
that
were here, which is about 25 that were represented at that time,
that
thanked us for our presentation and willingness to work with us and
their support of the -- of the project; and they're looking forward
to
the fezone petition. And I'll go ahead and pass that on to you.
And I think that Don's comment earlier that one of the
unique things about this project is that we do have neighborhood
support, and that is a very unique thing when you do a project or
are
suggesting a project like this. These are the individuals that are
most affected both physically from the adjacency of the development
and also from the standpoint that they're -- they do drive -- are
guaranteed to drive on those segments to and from that area; and,
in
fact, in many respects it will improve them.
The next part -- the next concern that we would have
other than transportation has to do with the visual impacts of this
intersection. Again, what we have is a -- is a small frontage on
Pine
Ridge. We'd be using existing facilities, and on the -- and the
proposed project on Airport Road. Again, we look at it, and we
feel
comfortable telling you that it will not have the visual impacts of
the larger boxes. This is an inward-looking project that we're
proposing, one away from -- away from the access point.
Now I'd like to get -- talk a little bit about the
Growth Management Plan and some of its provisions relative to this
__
this reconfiguration that we're proposing for this site. The --
last
year --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Fernandez. We're --
we're trying to hold the discussion down to why this -- we should
vote
to expand the activity center, not your project.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Let me get -- I'm getting
off there. And let me go ahead and talk about the Growth
Management
Plan and the activity center specifically then.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what we're after here today.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Very good. The Growth Management Plan
and the EAR basically suggested that we need to look at each
individual activity center. The reason for that was that the
boundaries of these activity centers have been drawn as square
overlays. Now, here's a couple activity centers (indicating). The
yellow areas are -- are single-family or -- or low-density
residential
areas of a few of these activity centers. We recognize that every
o~e
of these activity centers needs to be looked at individually. And
what you're going to see is that in many cases these activity
centers
are actually going to be shrunk and reduced, and we're going to
have
to look at the actual land uses and the other impacts that are
associated with them to make those kind of judgments, because right
now what you have is an overlay over residential that is just
encouraging people to seek higher intensity uses whether they're
commercial or larger multifamily uses.
In our particular case, what we're looking at doing --
and this is our activity center (indicating) -- is that this
particular activity center is -- their uses, land uses, are fairly
defined. In fact, this is the only piece of undeveloped
agricultural
land that's in this area. The rest of the pieces are already zoned
appropriately. So it's a very confined piece of property that has
certain attributes that lends itself to the kind of project that
wewre
looking at.
This is an enlargement of an exhibit that staff had in
their report, and what I've done is simply colored it up a little
bit
so that it reads a little bit better. The yellow portions are the
residential communities in this area, the reddish is the
commercial,
and the YMCA is shown in the green. But what I want to point out
is
that this is a 164-acre activity center. Out of those there are 19
acres of right-of-way within the activity center along Airport and
Pine Ridge. There are 7 acres of canal; there's 1 acre of local
road
right-of-way; and there's 18 acres of the YMCA, which is a
community
facility that could be located anywhere in the county. What we
actually have is a hundred and nineteen acres of activity center
use
in this area.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question before
you go on. Are there any activity centers that don't take in a lot
in
roadway, 12, 15, 18 acres worth of roadway?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, there is, specifically, all the
ones at the interchanges. And one of the precedents that this
project
is building upon is Grey Oaks. Grey Oaks came in to you and said
let's look at that, and what they did is they took out all the
roadways; they took out their golf course areas, the buffer areas;
and
they pulled back that acreage into defined areas that they would
then
have for development.
So there's a precedent for what we're suggesting could
be one of the options as far as reconfiguration. And, in fact,
when
the EAR -- as the EAR goes forward, that's what we're proposing.
The
EAR proposes to go back and look at each one of these activity
centers
and draw, as my client likes to say, little squiggly lines that
actually define better those areas that are more appropriate for
those
uses. So we're not proposing anything new that hasn't been done
already. Somebody's already done this. We're suggesting that it's
appropriate for our case as well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, are you about to the
point of wrapping up your presentation here?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, I am. The -- the bottom
portion of this -- what I'll show you is that -- now, as part --
adjacent to our activity center acreage that we're looking to have
brought into the activity center is about 11 1/2 acres that exists
currently within the activity center that our client also owns.
That
area right now is -- provides already for a hundred and -- a
hundred
and eighty units, 16 units per acre. What we're talking about is
folding that into the project. And actually, its intensity of
development would be less than would be required of the activity
center designation; and, in fact, the perimeter also does that so
that, in effect, what we have is an area of -- of activity center
intensity that is significantly less than the expansion we're
talking
about, because this -- these areas right here have no more than
eight
units per acre which would be allowed under the activity center
band.
So what we have is approximately -- and it's hard to
draw little squiggly lines when you have vertically a mixed-use
project, but effectively what we're showing is 26 acres of new
intense
-- activity center intensity resulting in a -- in a number of a
hundred and thirty-four, period.
Now, very quickly, the -- the other elements in the
review of the Growth Management Plan as you look through the
application is the appropriateness of the land use, compatibility,
which we've shown. The land is environmentally used as
agricultural,
and so it does not have any environmental issues. Potable water,
sewer, all the other issues that have to do with levels of service,
again, there's actually no problem; and, in fact, this type of
development in this area actually is an enhancement to the system.
In
other words, it's going to be using the infrastructure more
effectively and efficiently than it otherwise would have done.
And finally, relative to transportation, again, as I end
the presentation is that this project would generate approximately
$1.2 million in impact fees, approximately 800,000 more than would
be
otherwise available to you and also that has already been included
in
the 20/20 plan. Those moneys could also be used for improvements
to
this -- this area. And we think it could be used well to increase
the
effectiveness of the transportation system. With that I'd like to
have Mr. Pickworth close and just a couple brief comments.
MR. PICKWORTH: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to reserve a
couple minutes at the end, because I know there's some people to
speak
and then maybe answer some questions at that time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Pickworth, we don't
normally have rebuttal like in a courtroom. But could I ask you to
remove the -- the displays if you're through with them, please.
MR. PICKWORTH: I think that in summary we -- we are
proposing a project that is -- that is unique, that's different,
that
has a lot of benefits. And I -- and I know the forum is not today
to
talk about all the benefits of this project. By the same token, if
we
don't achieve a transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan amendment,
then
we never get a chance to decide whether or not the project is -- is
__
is meritorious.
We are extremely sincere in our assertion that what you
see is what youwre going to get. Whether we do it at the
transmittal
stage or the -- the final adoption stage, you can staple that site
plan to the amendment. Itws part of it as far as wewre concerned.
That is what wewre -- that is what wewre offering to do. Wewre not
asking for -- wewre not asking for any kind of blanket development
rights and then go figure out what wewre going to build later,
which
is the normal way it happens. Wewre going -- wewre going to do
what
we said wewre going to do, and if we donwt, we just go back to
square
one. And thatws a little different than the normal way it happens.
And I would just reiterate one more time just maybe one
-- to go back to one other thing I said, and Iill close with this:
Your activity centers are a license to build big box retail strip
centers. Thatls what they are. Thatls whatls in them. Thatls
whatls
going to continue to be in them. It is not realistic to think that
any individual who holds a license to build this type of
development
is going to voluntarily come in and take the economic risk to build
a
development of this type.
We, on the other hand, do not have that license. We
have to earn our license. And for that reason, we are able to
commit
to you a development of this type. And we would just ask you to
allow
us to continue to pursue this. We think that on the final day when
welre here for approval several months from now, not transmittal,
that
youlre going to have before you a development that, I think, you
and
the whole community can be proud of. Thank you.
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. How many?
MR. DORRILL: I have four, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Letls go.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Jacob. Then, Miss Barker, youill
follow Mr. Jacob.
MR. JACOB: Good morning. Iim Art Jacob. Iim chairman
of the Second District Association or otherwise known as the
Property
Owners Association of North Collier County. I appreciate this
opportunity to tell you what our board has decided we should say,
and
there are some other people here who will add to that.
First, we spent hours and hours and hours on this
particular program. We met with Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Lewis, and the
attorney. Main Street may be a good idea. Itls probably a great
idea, and I want to congratulate Mr. Fernandez for coming up with a
good plan, but we feel that itls in the wrong place.
Youlye heard the numbers, and Iim not going to go into
the numbers. I will question a couple of things, though. But if
you
look at that corner -- if you look at that corner, what has
happened
there? Commissioner Hancock, you have decided because of what's
happened at that corner that we are going to have to do something
about the design guidelines.
I question very much the -- the traffic gentleman's
analysis of where the traffic is going to come from, 35 and 20
percent
and so forth. Look at where the people live, and look at where the
people are building new homes to the west and to the north. So I
question the validity of his figures. I'm not a traffic expert
except
that I drive in traffic, and I see a lot of traffic where I work.
On
Friday afternoon at 6:30 on September 27th I went to that center.
I
wanted to get into Office Max. There were two deputies and one
state
patrolman directing traffic there. I saw no accident.
Consequently,
I think that that was sheer volume. Sheer volume, and you're going
to
add how many cars a day? I don't know. I don't think you know,
and I
don't think they know.
Activity centers -- the activity center designation was
done for a reason, and that is to control where we wanted
commercial
and how we wanted it and how much of it. Every time we change an
activity center doubling it or more than doubling it, we're setting
a
precedent. I don't want to set the precedent today.
Density, I don't want to get into that because this adds
density.
Green space, we're going to be talking about green space
later this morning. Take a ride up there and look at what is south
of
the activity center Carillon. It's green space, beautiful trees,
and
behind it I suppose there's a farm. But it's beautiful, and in one
day that's all going to be torn down to build this.
Is anything else available? Yeah. We've heard from
Pine Air Lakes, and you heard the numbers on Pine Air Lakes. They
are
thinking of doing something like a Main Street. They're due to
Come
back to us to talk about it. Unfortunately, these people don't own
Pine Air Lakes.
We're asking you not to transmit this. I think you'll
not only be transmitting something to the state, you'll be
transmitting and sending a message to your constituents, to the
people
who live here, that -- that you don't care what activity centers
aim
to do; you only care about the growth. And I don't think that's
the
case with you gentlemen. It's going to send the wrong message. So
we
appreciate the opportunity. And just going to quote -- I never
quote
from the Naples Daily News, but I will today.
(Laughter)
MR. JACOB: Their -- their editorial of a couple of
weeks ago, it ended with two words -- or three words: "Enough is
enough." Thank you very much.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barker and then Ms. Straton.
MS. BARKER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Sally Barker. And Mr. Jacob is a hard act to
follow, so I won't even try. My main concern this morning is the
impact of this project on the Airport Road corridor. And since I'm
so
concerned, I spent last evening coloring you pretty pictures, which
I
would like -- like to give you, especially the North Airport Road
corridor. You'll see when you get this that the existing activity
centers are in shocking pink, the future planned activity centers
are
in iridescent green, and the proposed project in question today is
sort of orange.
But in that 7-mile stretch beginning with Grey Oaks at
Golden Gate Boulevard (sic) all the way up to Immokalee Road we
have,
what, five activity centers either planned, on the ground today, or
in
the works. That amounts to 4,400,802 square feet of commercial
space
either on the ground or coming soon to a corridor near you or,
actually, near us. If you add another potential 400,000 square
feet
at this new Main Street mixed-use PUD, that will come to 4,800,802
square feet of commercial space on Airport Road from Golden Gate
Parkway to Immokalee Road. Frankly, that's too much. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Straton and then Mr. Devine.
MS. STRATON: I'm Chris Straton, the vice-chairman of
the Second District Association, and I want to limit my remarks to
some of the traffic impacts and then, sort of, what's the rush.
There's some things going on that seem like it would be more
prudent
to follow a logical process. The Second District Association has
seen
a lot of plans from a lot of developers, and they always look
great.
But what we get and what we see are not necessarily the same thing,
and you've experienced the same thing.
The other thing is I'm sure you've never seen a DRI that
didn't come in with the petitioner saying there will not have a
significant traffic impact, and somehow we have all this traffic.
Because of what's going on at Pine Ridge and Airport Road, you
decided
we need to look at the whole idea of activity centers. You decided
that we needed look at the need for a commercial study. That
intersection is scheduled to have an elevated overpass, flyway,
bridge, whatever you want to call it. But to accommodate the
traffic
as part of our traffic plan, we're going to have to raise one of
those
roads to accommodate everything. So obviously anything that's
going
to be adding any additional traffic to that has the potential of
moving that whole effort forward, and there aren't a lot of people
that look favorably on Collier County having elevated highways to
be
able to accommodate transportation.
The North Naples people are interested in putting
together a master plan. You have said work with staff to develop
that. That master plan -- while this area is considered Central
Naples, it's part of the North Naples master plan. So there are a
lot
of things that you have directed staff to look at to -- to -- to do
more in terms of an integrated plan recognizing what we've learned
from our existing Comprehensive Plan. I think it's appropriate to
let
those natural things follow, and the question is what's the rush.
Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Devine and then Mr. Johnson.
MR. DEVINE: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. I
say that with tongue in cheek. Actually, it's a terrible morning.
I
commend you on being here on time on such a terrible morning. My
comments will be very, very brief.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you state your name.
MR. DEVINE: Art Jacobs has spoken very well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you state your name for the
record.
MR. DEVINE: My name is Dan Devine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DEVINE: I'm the president of the Commons Board of
the Naples Bath and Tennis Club, and I represent 516 property
owners
in that development. I'm like Commissioner Hancock. I don't
understand all these numbers. I'm a retired tennis player. But I
do
know I live in the Naples Bath and Tennis Club, and nowhere have I
heard that the front entrance of this development will be facing
directly opposite the front entrance of the Naples Bath and Tennis
Club. With 519 -- or 516, rather, property owners coming back and
forth into that interchange, sharing the same traffic light, you
cannot tell me that that will not create a serious traffic problem.
We already have had several accidents since the construction of the
Carillon, the Pine Ridge -- center -- shopping malls. That is
without
the shopping malls.
I agree this is a marvelous project, but I think it's in
absolutely the wrong place. How we arrive at these numbers, I
don't
know. But trying to get out even on a green light at times from
our
club is extremely difficult. You have to stop and not only wait
until
the light turns green but actually wait a while longer because
they're
trying to beat the light both ways. From the east, west, north,
south, all I know is we'll be coming out directly facing the main
entrance to that proposed mixed center, number one. Number two,
sharing that same traffic light, that has to be an additional cause
for delay of -- on Airport-Pulling Road.
In addition, I feel that it is too dense. We would much
prefer a residential-type of a complex on that site. I don't think
we
need another shopping mall. We're abutted on one side with the
Pine
Ridge, with Ridgeport, we have Carillon. We really don't need a
shopping center directly opposite us. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Johnson.
MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. I'm Fredrick Johnson. I'm
president of the World Tennis Center at 4800 Airport Road, and I'm
here to represent the World Tennis Center, our board, and our
homeowners.
We heard about this project seriously, actually, for the
first time last evening at our board meeting; and we were quite
concerned about it, because we know that this area is going to be
developed in the future. There's no serious question about that.
And
we're very interested in the way it is developed, and what
interested
us about it was it seemed to be -- it was, in fact, a low-density
development; and we are very much concerned that if this is not
pursued, we may be faced with a high-density proposition, which we
won't like at all very much. We liked the plans that we saw, and
there wasn't a person at the meeting that was not in favor of
pursuing
the study of this plan.
Now, we understood that this meeting this morning was to
not approve of the plan, but to give it a chance to at least
continue
a bit. That may be incorrect, but that's what our understanding
Was.
And we would hate to see a plan that seems to us to be a possible
upgrade of the neighborhood dismissed because of the fears that
usually go in the future. We understand our area is going to face
a
great deal of future development, because that's the way the county
is
moving, that's the way the city is -- that's the way the town is
moving. So we would like to see at least the plan be given a
chance
to -- so we can take a look at it in the future a bit. And that's
our
hope, and that's why I'm here to say that this morning. We think
this
should not be killed without a chance to -- to look at it in the
future. So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all? Does any board member
have any questions before we close the public hearing?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't really have any
questions, no.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nothing further?
Then we'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We saw a proposal to expand the
urban boundary not too long ago, and I think this board took a very
conservative approach in that in not transmitting it to the state
because we felt that it was inconsistent with the goals of our
Growth
Management Plan, that it didn't meet criteria or a litmus test that
said this is, in all senses, good for the community. The failure
of
the activity center concepts has been recognized through the EAR
process by our staff, and staff is currently working on revising
that. And I think it's a little premature to use that as a nexus
to
expand the activity center, and this is where the problem comes in
for
me. If it's not working, fix it; but don't expand it because it's
not
working. That fails a logic test to me.
I like the project. I like the mixed use. I like the
Main Street concept. If I could take this and tuck it into the
corner
of an activity center somewhere, I'd probably be one of your
biggest
supporters; but I can't. And I cannot see my way to -- to expand
the
activity center just because this is a good project. And that's
the
only reason we'd be doing it, and I think that's inconsistent with
our
Growth Management Plan. I'm going to move that we do not transmit
Petition CP-96-3 to the state.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I need to disclose that I've had
contact with the petitioner, the representatives, and contact by --
by
letter and phone from the public; but I'm basing my decision
strictly
on what I've heard here today at this public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I, too, have
had contact; but will, as required by law, base my decision solely
on
that information provided during the public hearing. There are
also a
couple of letters that I had indicated I'd make a part of the
public
record, one from Art Jacob and the Second District Association, and
one from a couple living on Bald Eagle Drive, which I will pass on
and
make a part of the record.
I'm going to second the motion, and I'm going to do so
for the following reasons: The petitioner has indicated he
believes
that there's a demand for additional commercial development in the
county. I'm not sure that's the case; staff thinks not according
to
the summary pages we have and thinks their petition is premature at
best. EAR recognizes the need for commercial development, but not
for
a fezone, not necessarily for additional space. We have plenty of
existing space -- commercial development space available. I kind
of
jotted myself down -- 57 percent of all commercial zoning in the
county has yet to be developed, which raises the question why we
would
add more if that's not yet being developed.
But perhaps most importantly and going along the lines
of what Commissioner Hancock said, this is a great-looking project.
It's a fantastic-looking project, and I know it's been successful
on
the east coast. But there is space -- I know you don't happen to
own
the property, but there is space not only elsewhere in the county
but
within this actual activity center. There is almost a million
square
feet available in this activity center. And -- and if we follow
our
own guidelines and our own ordinances and our own laws, I don't
think
we can, in good faith, add to this activity center when all that is
available both here and in other activity centers throughout the
county.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I'm required also to
disclose that I have met with the petitioner many times. I've had
letters and phone calls from residents and from some folks in Bath
and
Tennis. I'm sorry I haven't written back just yet, but I did get
your
letters; and I'm basing my decision on the information presented
here
today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I, too, have had a discussion
with the petitioner and many discussions with citizens living in
the
area; but I, too, will base my decision on what we've heard today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Before I call the question, I'd like to say that I
really like the project. I think it's a great concept. I think
it's
-- it's something that would work very well with our community.
Unfortunately, for the reasons that I've heard stated here today,
expansion of this particular activity center is -- is not, in my
opinion, the way to go.
So with that, all those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That denial is 4 to 1 then. Thank
you, gentlemen.
(Applause)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 96-58 RE PETITION PUD-96-10, WILLIAM HOOVER OF HOOVER
PLANNING SHOPPE, REPRESENTING DAVID MALLORY OF THE FIRST ASSEMBLY
OF
GOD CHURCH REQUESTING A REZONING OF CERTAIN DEFINED PROEPRTY AS
HEREIN
DESCRIBED FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND"PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
TO "PUD" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF C.R.
951
AND RIFLE RANGE ROAD WEST OF SWAMP BUGGY DAYS PUD IN SEC. 14, T50S,
R26E, CONSISTING OF 68.8 ACRES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's move right into our next
petition, which is 12(B)(1), Petition PUD-96-10.
We're still in session, folks. If we could get started,
please.
MR. MILK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
my name is Bryan Milk, and I am presenting Petition PUD-96-10.
Mr. Hoover of Hoover Planning Shoppe and Beau Keene of Keene
Engineering are representing Pastor David Mallory requesting a
rezoning from A and PUD to PUD for a planned unit development for a
mixed campus-type environment including the following uses: A
chapel,
an auditorium, a child care center, a private school, a care
facility,
a TTRVC park, an ACLF facility, a radio station, multifamily
dwelling
units, and several accessory uses complementary to the permitted
uses.
The subject property is located at the northeast
intersection of Rifle Range Road and C.R. 951. The project area
encompasses approximately 69 acres, it is currently undeveloped,
and
is infested with exotic vegetation. To the north is agricultural
property that is primarily undeveloped. To the east is the Florida
Sports Park encompassing a hundred and twenty-nine acres. This
facility was developed in approximately 1986 with motorized racing
events. That boundary is approximately 350 feet east of this
property
boundary. To the south is Rifle Range Road and further
agricultural
property, again, primarily undeveloped. To the west is C.R. 951
right-of-way.
The right-of-way is being expanded to a 4-lane arterial
facility that will be operated at level of service A in the near
future. Currently, public water and sewer is available to the
project. Access is provided through Rifle Range Road intersecting
with C.R. 951.
If I can answer any questions at this time, I'd be happy
to do so. At the Planning Commission on September 19th, there was
a
6 to 0 vote in favor of the particular petition. No one spoke in
opposition to the item. Staff received one letter of objection
from a
surrounding property owner; that is in the executive summary
packet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- the nature of their
objection was --
MR. MILK: Just that it would devalue their property was
the nature.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is, is it possible at
this point to -- to roll into this application a name change from
Rifle Range Road to the Lord's Way? I just have a real bad feeling
about -- is -- is that possible to do as -- as part of this
hearing?
MR. MILK: I believe so. This is a public hearing. I
believe we can do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to be suggesting that
at -- at some point in the process.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that secular enough?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let -- let me take a second, perhaps,
and talk about the genesis of this project very briefly.
About three years ago, Sheriff Hunter and I got together
and tried to come up with some sort of plan to deal with the
homeless
situation here in our county. What you see here on this proposal
is
the outgrowth of that through the -- the efforts of the First
Assembly
of God and Pastor Mallory. Sheriff Hunter and I, our plan is to --
to
couple this eventual project as it comes together with a -- with an
ordinance that regulates camping. This gives the sheriff the
ability
to collect the homeless when they're encroaching and infringing on
some private property and be able to escort them to this facility
where Pastor Mallory can then begin the rehabilitation process,
perhaps, or -- or determine if that's even going to be appropriate
in
the cases.
But in any case, the -- the homeless will be -- we will
have a mechanism to get them off of the streets and get them out of
the situation that they're currently living in and, perhaps, put
them
on the road to becoming productive citizens in the future. That's
the
genesis of this program.
Pastor Mallory has come up with a very ambitious
program. It's important to note, probably, that this is all
planned
to come in phases. The initial phase, of course, which, you know,
is
dealing with the homeless so that we can get started on that. I
know
Pastor Mallory has struggled for years with this -- this problem
and
tried on several occasions to come up with a solution to deal with
them. His primary objective here is to deal with the homeless at
this
point. I think that's very important from my perspective, but even
more importantly to me is to be able to come up with a plan that
alleviates the conflicts that the homeless create with our private
citizens and their property rights. So I think we have a package
here
that -- that does everything, and I hope that the board members
will
see this and support it. Petitioner, please.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just say as they're coming
up -- just to thank you, too, Commissioner Norris, for leading
this,
because in my couple of years on the board I can tell you it's
frustrating sometimes to see an accomplishment (sic); and I think
that
you have really, really accomplished something in providing a
solution
to a problem that you saw and not just complaining about it. And I
just want to thank you and commend you for it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're welcome.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To get it out of the way, I've
had discussions with the petitioner on this and some members of the
public and will base my decision on what we are presented today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Same thing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I haven't had discussions.
We've tried, but the current storm kind of got in the way so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have; however, as required
by law, I'll base my decision solely on the information provided
during the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This has been a recording.
MR. HOOVER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing First Assembly
of
God Church.
Briefly, I'd just like to highlight a few points on this
project. In this case I have the luxury of dealing with a -- a
project that we -- we pretty much know what we want to do here, so
it's not a speculation-type rezoning. We've placed the more
intensive
uses in the northeast quadrant of the project and have intentions
of
placing the more aesthetic uses like the church along County Road
951.
Additionally, what one of our concerns here was, sort of
what Commissioner Norris was pointing out, we also want to take
care
of the -- this area is virtually undeveloped, but we want to in
this
case take care of the neighboring property owners so that that
project, coming down the road here maybe five years or whatever,
can
be developed in a manner that works for them. To do this -- you
can
see we've got a preserve area in the northwest quadrant, and in the
northeast quadrant and in the southeast quadrant we've got a 70
acre
-- that would actually be a preserved area that we're going to
develop.
Internally, if you look at the site plan, you can see
that the homeless facility is on the northeast side of the lake,
the
facility's management building, the bus garage -- bus parking and
the
travel trailer units. The travel trailer units northeast of the
lake
are designed to primarily serve people that would be working in
these
facilities that are also located on the northeast side of the lake.
The -- between the lake and the FPL easement is going to be more of
a
quiet, residential area where we'll have some adult living
facilities
as well as a travel trailer park that would house retired ministers
and missionaries of the same church.
Additionally, as far as security, there would be a fence
around the entire perimeter except where we have water bodies on
the
perimeter or the FPL easement where fences are not allowed.
Additionally, we would have security 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
and there would be a guardhouse as well as intermittent patrols.
In the last couple weeks, we've started developing Tract
A on a preliminary site development plan, and the intention is to
submit that within the next week or so, and we -- we just handed
out a
revised PUD document and PUD master plan, and basically there's a
few
minor changes we would like to make since the Planning Commission
has
seen this. Additionally, it reflects changes made by the EAB. In
this case it went to the Planning Commission, then the EAB, and
then
up to you guys. Basically, we changed the name of the project from
First Assembly of God to First Assembly Ministries. Additionally,
I
think the other change of any consequence --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask you why that is. I --
I -- when I saw that, I -- I made a joke to Commissioner
Constantine,
"I hope that was just a typo." Why would you strike out the "of
God"
part?
MR. HOOVER: Would you like to answer that, Pastor? I
was just advised about a week ago that they would like to make that
change.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I kind of liked it the way
it was.
MR. MALLORY: David Mallory, pastor of First Assembly of
God in Naples. First Assembly of God is a church denomination, the
Assemblies of God, Incorporated, and headquartered in Springfield,
Missouri. We have approximately 10,000 churches in the United
States. The First Assembly of God -- at the present time the
worship
center is located at 2132 Shadowlawn Drive. We felt that the 70-
acre
parcel -- because of the church relocation, there is an option
perhaps
sometime in the distant future that this is a ministry center, and
we
don't want the public to be confused between the worship center and
the ministry center. So we would like to designate this facility
as
First Assembly Ministries, because many of the ministries of the
church will be carried out at that location, the worship being at
the
present location.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's basically so people don't
get confused and think that's where the church is?
MR. MALLORY: Yes. If you are -- if you attend an
Assembly of God Church, normally -- you're visiting in the area,
you
look for First Assembly of God. You look for that designation such
as
a Baptist or Lutheran, and we just felt that we need to keep the
church identity separate from the actual ministry of the church.
MR. HOOVER: The other change we made of any consequence
was we enlarged Tract A, which is the northeast quadrant, by about
nine-tenths of an acre, and we -- we just handed you a PUD master
plan. It basically -- originally, where the road goes east-west,
it
dead ends at the homeless center facility. We bumped that down a
little bit so that we could provide a -- a lake separating the
homeless facility and the related more intensive uses from the rest
of
the project.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, the -- Rifle Range
Road, is that a county-owned right-of-way?
MR. MILK: It's -- it's a private road that is at a --
it needs to be upgraded. The petitioner is going to upgrade that
to a
county standard up to that FPL easement with right- and left-decel
lanes and turn lanes. Right now it's basically a lime rock road
which
exits the sports facility there. Essentially, it's not a -- a
public
road right-of-way at all. There's several easements that are
conveyed
both to the north and south of that Rifle Range Road --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So and then --
MR. MILK: -- just to access the properties to the
northeast.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So the construction of that
portion of that roadway and that bridge would not be eligible for
roadway impact fees; is that correct?
MR. MILK: I don't know if I can answer that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My understanding is if it's not a
county-owned land, it's not a public right-of-way, then it's not
eligible for impact fees. We can't give impact fees to private
access
roads.
MR. MILK: It's definitely not a public right-of-way or
public road.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions?
Do we have some speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Only one. Mr. Marlin.
MR. MARLIN: I'm Earl Marlin for the record. There's
very little I can add to this. It's all well known. I would just
like to recommend that it be approved. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's it? Do we have questions from
the board?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would be -- and if this -- if
this application is approved, I'd like to ask if staff would assist
the petitioner in -- in whatever's necessary to find out how they
might be able to form an MSTU so the property owners to the south
of
that road may be agreeable to sharing in the cost of construction.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Of the road, you mean?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Of the roadway, yeah, of just the
roadway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, you mean of the Lord's Way,
not Rifle Range Road?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And I do want to ask that
-- there is a process for name changes on roads, and because this
hasn't been advertised, I -- I really think it needs to go through
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let's just ask Mr. Weigel.
Could we change the name of that road today, or do we have to go
through another process?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I believe you'll have to go through
the process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- yeah. I'd like to ask
staff --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: However, you can refer to --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if this were approved today to
assist the petitioner in -- in what may be necessary -- the
information necessary to help them try to form an MSTU so some
others
can share in the cost of the construction of that roadway.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If -- if there are no further
questions, then at this point I'll close the public hearing.
And with the board members' indulgence, I know it's a
little out of order, but I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. She can have it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
Without any further comment, all those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a question before
we go forward? Pastor Mallory, when do you -- when do you think
the
homeless shelter is going to be ready?
MR. MALLORY: I understand there are several -- several
hurdles yet, South Florida Water Management District and certain
things. But the shelter is located in an upland area, and we're
going
to ask approval to begin developing that area immediately. So as
quickly as we have the green lights in each -- each area, our
architect, Jack Gilliland, will be preparing the necessary plans
for
our building permits. And the engineering and environmental staff
are
going to be doing everything they can. So as quickly as possible.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Any -- any chance for this
winter's season?
MR. MALLORY: I don't --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's probably too soon.
MR. MALLORY: I don't see that unless some of the TTRVC
sites were ready, and we could -- we could begin some temporary
housing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This would probably be a good
time for those contributions to start rolling in. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely.
MR. MALLORY: I think it would be an excellent time,
yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just thought I'd make that
plug.
MR. MALLORY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do the board members have any
objection to taking a 30-minute lunch and getting back here by
noon?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as we stick right to
that, I don't care.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's try to be back at --
right at 12 so we can continue and finish up this agenda.
(A lunch break was held from 11:31 to 12:09.)
Item #1282
ORDINANCE 96-59 RE PETITION PUD-96-7, ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE,
HONTES
AND ASSICATES, INC., REPRESENTING KENNETH D. GOODMAN REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "E" TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS COLLEGE PARK PUD FOR
PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AND
APPROXIMATELY
ONE MILE WEST OF C.R. 951 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they're off.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We are ready for Petition -- 12(B)(2),
Petition PUD-96-7.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current
planning staff. This petition was first presented on June llth of
this year. It was continued to -- to allow the school board to
purchase the adjacent -- or -- or the Collegewood PUD that's 300
feet
away for a proposed school barn. I've been in contact with the
school
board. They have purchased the property, and they have plans to
start
construction of the bus barn prior to the next school year.
The other issues that were raised during the last
meeting was the location of the proposed extension of Santa Barbara
Boulevard. Basically, one of the proposals was to have the road
Come
down along the -- the east side of the Wing Park South Airport and
possibly join up with Lely Resort Boulevard. There are other
proposals that have the road come out this way (indicating) to 951.
According to my conversations with the transportation department,
they're a few years away from finalizing any design for that
location
of that extension; therefore, there's no way to determine how that
road -- extension will impact this project.
The other concern was the location of the Wing Park's
runway to the northwest of this property. Staff has determined
that
since it's a private airport with very limited flights, we just put
in
the stipulation that the homeowners' agreement or leasing agreement
contain language that they're located next to an airport and
additional soundproofing on the buildings. If you have any other
questions, I'll be happy to answer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds to me like this was the
good news. We were worried that we were going to have too much
affordable housing -- or some people were -- in this area, and now
that the school board is going to build their bus barn, that
concern
has gone away. We're talking about affordable housing for some
college kids. Surely they are -- we're going to thank them for
waiting and move on with the approval.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't call me Shirley.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, Joe.
MR. DUANE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Robert Duane from Hole, Montes and Associates here
representing the petitioner. I'll be very brief. We agree with
all
the staff stipulations. We're consistent with your Growth
Management
Plan. We exceed or meet all the requirements of your Land
Development
Code. The project is undeniably compatible with surrounding land
uses. It abuts commercial zoning to the west and institutional
land
uses to the south. We have the unanimous support of your Planning
Commission, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have this
morning. Appreciate your consideration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go over the density numbers for us,
Mr. Duane. How much of this is going to be -- proposed to be
affordable, and how much is market rate, that sort of thing?
MR. DUANE: Seventy percent of the project is proposed
to be affordable. That substantially exceeds the minimum
requirements
of your Affordable Housing Ordinance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So 30 percent is unaffordable then?
(Laughter)
MR. DUANE: Thirty percent will be market rate, and
seventy percent will be below market rate. The rent for the
two-bedroom units, of which there will be 168, is $564 a month.
There
will be 42 three-bedroom units, and the rent will be $624 a month
for
those units.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DUANE: The base density is 7 units per acre, and
we're requesting a density bonus of 5 units per acre for a total of
12
units per acre.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The base density is seven?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So on 30 percent of the property, or 3
acres would that be about, you're using 7 acres -- 7 units per
acre?
MR. DUANE: If you want to look at it that way, that's
correct. We've had this discussion at prior commission meetings
before. My understanding of the ordinance as it's written today is
we're entitled to a maximum density bonus of eight units per acre.
We're requesting five units per acre, and we're roughly twice what
the
minimum requirements of this project is for affordability. And we
also include 20 percent of the units in the very low-income
category.
I see that Mr. Mihalic is here, and I'm sure that he can complement
my
responses to you if you have any additional questions.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Duane, the 70 percent
affordable -- 20 percent you said is very low? MR. DUANE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What is the breakdown on the
other 50 percent?
MR. DUANE: Fifty percent would be low.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fifty percent would be low?
MR. DUANE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So there's no moderate income?
MR. DUANE: Well, 30 percent of the units, you know,
would -- could be at market rate; but 70 percent of the -- of the
units will be below market rate.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So -- but you're gearing
those toward low and very low --
MR. DUANE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- as opposed to moderate?
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do we have any speakers
on this item?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, we have two. Mr. Erlichman and,
Ms. Krier, you'll follow Mr. Erlichman. That'll be all, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples,
and I'm a voter and taxpayer in Collier County, and I'm speaking
for
myself. I -- I'm addressing the chair and the board of
commissioners
with the exception of Miss Mac'Kie, because she's already made up
her
mind. At the beginning she said she's in favor of it and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was in favor of it the
last time, so that would be no big surprise.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. This is supposed to be -- is this
supposed to be a housing project primarily for students at the
junior
-- at the college? That is what Miss Mac'Kie said.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It just seems like a natural
market to me considering its location.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Oh. But it's not?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think it's restricted to
college students if that was the question.
MR. ERLICHMAN: We already have in East Naples Osprey
Landing, a project on Radio Road, the south side of Radio Road,
between Embassy Woods and Windjammer manufactured homes, affordable
housing, so that's two. And then there's another affordable
housing
project on Rattlesnake Hammock. I believe it might be just west of
this proposed affordable housing on the south side of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road.
I happen to live in -- in Royal Wood, which is within
about a mile of this area -- of these two projects, and I believe
there's about a 2-mile radius we have -- we will now have four
affordable housing projects in East Naples. I don't know what
others
are proposed, but I think that East Naples is becoming a dumping
ground for affordable housing. I don't think there's any other
area
in Collier County that has that many affordable housing projects
existing and being proposed at this time.
So I am -- I'm entirely opposed to this, and of course,
we're -- they're -- getting back -- getting to percentages on this
affordable housing, they're only talking about 20 percent are very
low. So I thought that this affordable housing -- or affordable
housing projects that were going to be built would be to -- to
accommodate people in the very low and low-income areas. I -- I
haven't seen any -- any existing housing even in Osprey Landing in
the
very low affordable housing. And maybe Mr. Mihalic can give me
Some
information on that when I'm finished.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you asking for, if it's
approved then, a hundred percent very low?
MR. ERLICHMAN: I would say that that would be correct,
sir, if it's approved, because, you know, we're talking -- I don't
know. I -- I would say yes, but I'm talking about a concentration
of
four projects now in this East Naples area within a 2-mile radius.
I
-- I really don't -- I really don't think it's -- it's -- it's
good
for the -- for East Naples.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Krier.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before she comes up,
Mr. Hihalic, just -- I want to clear up something Gil said. MR. HIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the concerns I had
raised last time, and they're consistently raised when we have
projects such as this, is that we don't want to see them all
cjustered
in one area. Gil indicated there was a second piece of property on
the southern half of Rattlesnake Hammock that's zoned affordable
housing. Is that the piece that was purchased by the school board
and
is becoming a school depot -- or a bus depot -- MR. HIHALIC: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or is it -- is there
another over and above that?
MR. HIHALIC: To the best of my knowledge, that's the
piece that the school board has purchased to become their bus
depot,
sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make a statement about that
too. As a matter of fact, Mr. Dotrill and I have spoken with Dr.
Hunz
of the school board to try to see if maybe we could do something
different besides put a bus depot there on Rattlesnake Hammock. I
don't know where those discussions are going at this particular
time,
but what we're trying to do is -- is upgrade that end of town, not
start putting in things like bus depots and affordable housing. So
I
don't know where we are on that particular discussion, but that
property is -- is -- there's some question about whether or not it
will ever be a bus depot.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just -- I got --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless Mr. Dorrill knows
otherwise as a liaison of the school board, the information that I
received is that they have actually, just as recently as a week or
two
weeks ago, taken board action to expend dollars for the development
of
that site as a bus depot.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They've included it in their
budget.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in their budget.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. It's in their budget, and
they've physically moved ahead on it. So I think that their
direction
has been very, very clear from an expenditure side on what they
intend
on doing with this site; and that was the level of comfort I was
trying to seek, because, Commissioner Norris and Mr. Erlichman,
you've
got a point. We don't want to create an affordable housing cjuster
in
any part of the community. The idea is to have them interspersed
throughout the balance of the community. And my concern then was
two
very close together, and the indications I have, or the -- the one
that is -- is now under the ownership and development of the school
board, will not be used for affordable housing, and their -- their
actions support that as recently as a week or two ago. So that's -
just that's the most up-to-date I have on the -- on the activity on
that parcel.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Krier.
MS. KRIER: Good afternoon. For the record my name is
Ellie Krier, and I represent the Chamber/EDC Coalition for
Government
and Community Affairs. And while the coalition cannot speak on
specific properties, we will take every opportunity possible to
speak
on encouraging you to increase appropriate available affordable
housing for the sake of the work force in Collier County and a
balanced economy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: No other speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No other speakers? Are there any
further questions for the petitioner?
MR. DUANE: May I note something more for the record,
Mr. Chairman? I do have a letter from the school board indicating
that they expect construction to start on this project by the
beginning of the next school board, and I'd be happy to share this
letter with the commissioners if it's your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just hand it to Mr. Weigel. Thank
you. If there's no further questions, I'll close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, your -- your
position, I think, is a -- is a valid one. Had the school board
not
purchased the site and the property by Mr. Beyrent would still be
out
there as a potential affordable housing site, I'd be inclined not
to
support this petition at all, because I think we have a
responsibility
to spread that out throughout the community. We do have a couple
projects within a couple of miles of each other elsewhere in the
county, and this particular project, although I'm supportive of it
and I will move approval of PUD-96-7 -- I think we need to send a
message that this is not going to be an affordable corridor and
that
future projects in this area need to understand that before they
spend
their time and efforts in trying to locate there.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
I'm not going to support the motion, because I believe
we have -- we've been trying to upgrade this particular corner of
the
-- the county with the -- with the university property. We have
two
schools out there and possibly a third. We're trying to do things
to
upgrade it. Now we're going to put a -- a bus depot right on top
of
affordable housing, and -- and I don't think that's really pushing
that property in the direction that it needs to go. So I'm not
going
to support the motion.
Any other comments? If there's not, we have a motion
and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Aye.
That passes 4 to 1.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, one of the things that
we've had difficulty with on affordable housing before is the
density
bonus, and I just did a little bit of arithmetic on that. And if
we
take 70 percent of the 17 acres multiplied by the maximum of 8
units
of density bonus, we get 221 units available, and this is only 210.
So that -- that's one of the things we've been asking is that
density
bonuses not be spread across the entire project, and in this case
it
wasn't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Related to your comment,
Commissioner Norris, the -- the bus depot, under the new interlocal
agreement, we get site plan review over that, do we not, Mr.
Cautero?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think so.
MR. CAUTERO: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not at all?
MR. CAUTERO: I don't think so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think -- I think we -- I
will go ahead and ask the school board to provide us with the site
plan, because I think we need to look at things such as how much is
being left -- how much native vegetation is being left to buffer
what's behind there from the roadway and so forth, because these
two
projects' proximity are not -- are not ideally what we want. So I
will contact Mr. Hunz and ask for that information. And, Mr.
Cautero,
I'll make sure you get copied on that, and let's -- let's see if
there's some things we can suggest that will make it a better fit.
Item #1284
ORDINANCE 96-60 RE PETITION PUD-96-9, KEVIN G. COLEMAN OF
GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN, JOANSON, AND ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES,
REPRESENTING MARRIOT SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INC., REQUESTING A
REZONE
FROM "PUD" GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH, TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS BRIGHTON
GARDENS FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL CONSIST OF NOT MORE THAN 133
CONGREGATE/ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY (ACLF/ALF) UNITS, BASED ON 93
ASSISTED LIVING UNITS AND A 40 BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31)
APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 MILES SOUTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD, CONTAINING 5.14
ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our next item is 12(B)(4),
Petition PUD-96-9.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, your planning services division.
The petition that's before you is 5.14 acres of land located on the
west side of Immokalee -- of Airport Road for the purpose of
accommodating a adult care congregate living facility. The site is
currently zoned for a singular use. It's known as the Greek
Orthodox
PUD. It's located on the west side of Airport Road immediately
contiguous the road to Emerald Lakes. The property to the north
and
south of this property is zoned agricultural. Across the street is
a
residential community. To the -- immediately to the rear or the
west
of this property are single-family homes located in the Emerald
Lakes
PUD.
Review of this petition from the point of view of its
consistency relationships with the Future Land Use Element, with
the
traffic circulation element, the open space element, utilities
element, conservation element, all advise staff that this petition
is
consistent with those elements of the GHP.
The facility is -- provides -- the PUD provides for a
facility that's described as a hundred-and-thirty-three-bed
congregate
living facility without the -- the PUD document also suggests that
because 16 units are semiprivate rooms that the real number of
units
here is a hundred and seventeen units as opposed to a hundred and
thirty-three. Ninety-three are relatively independent living
facilities while forty -- forty beds are in a nursing facility.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Nino, like the -- the Marco
Island petition that we turned down, are there kitchens in these
units? Do they look like condos, or do they look like hospital
rooms?
MR. NINO: They're one-bedroom, full-service.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have kitchens?
MR. NINO: Yes, they do have -- I believe they do have
kitchens, don't they. No? Are they -- are they kitchenettes? Not
even kitchenettes? I thought they --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe we should hear from the
petitioner on that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. It sounds like an
important question.
MR. NINO: The -- the project contains all of the common
elements of congregate living. It contains a master -- a master
dining room. It contains therapeutic rooms. It contains many of
the
facilities -- the common facilities that you would normally tend to
see in a congregate living environment.
The -- from the point of view of compatibility, the most
sensitive relationship that this petition has with adjoining lands
obviously are the single-family homes to the west. The PUD as
structured has taken special pains to address that relationship.
Mr. Duane will describe the -- the additional landscaping and
buffering that is intended to be accomplished on the west boundary.
Not only will the west boundary take care of the straight
horizontal
view, but he'll tell you that it takes care of the horizon view so
that the person standing on his -- in his backyard on the
single-family housing will not see anything to the west. It'll be
a
hundred percent opacity rating, and Mr. Duane will show you a -- an
iljustration that accomplishes that. Except for that relationship,
obviously other relationships were deemed compatible since there
really isn't any development to the north and to the south.
We received three letters regarding this petition.
They're included in your executive package. Two of them expressed
opposition; one has expressed support. The Planning Commission,
when
they heard this petition, unanimously recommended approval to you.
The -- the PUD as structured has met our -- our perusal. It
contains
standards which we think are -- are reasonable for the situation
that's being requested.
I think the petitioner's presentation will show you that
some of the architectural elements that are being made a part of
this
development, the fact that the two -- the three-story part will be
the
furthest west from the housing are all elements that further
enhance
the compatibility of this project as it relates to the single-
family
community to the west. I think they've taken extra pains to design
a
project both utilizing landscaping and utilizing the architectural
features to distance themselves from the closest residential area;
and
I think you need to hear their presentation --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's do that then.
MR. NINO: -- because it has -- it has the material that
we don't have.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question for you,
Mr. Nino. The letters in our packet of objection indicate a fear
that
the petitioner's project will lower property values. Do you think
that's the case?
MR. NINO: No, I don't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. COLEMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Kevin Coleman of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson representing
the
petitioner, Marriott Senior Living Services. Today -- Mr. Bob
Duane
is also the project planner. He's here from Holes, Hontes &
Associates, as is representatives -- as are representatives from
Marriott and namely Lino Bernardi a senior director of development;
Mr. Michael Faldmo, the director of development; and Mr. John
Hogan,
the architectural design manager.
I'd like to compliment Mr. Nino. He's accurately and
rather thoroughly detailed the project. We agree with the staff
conditions recommended, and we believe that the project is a good
project. One minor discrepancy, and we'll hit that right off the
bat,
and that is concerning the units themselves. I think from a
square-footage standpoint, this is one of the most -- more unique
ACLFs, because our units are extremely small; they're 350, average,
square feet. There are no cooking or kitchen facilities in any of
the
units. There is a sink, and there's a little place underneath the
sink where you could have a miniature refrigerator similar to what
you
have in a hotel room, but there are no other cooking facilities or
kitchen facilities of any type. And, in fact, the entire project
will
serve three meals a day to each of the residents, both the 40
nursing
home units and the 93, quote, independent, although you'll hear
from
Marriott -- if you choose to hear from them -- that really there
are
no independent living. All these people that live here require
Some
services of some type.
This petition is a little different than the ones you've
seen in the past, because we know exactly what we want to build and
when we want to build it. And if you give me one minute, let me
show
you. This is the building (indicating) that the Marriott people
intend to construct on the property. They have site plans --
actually, construction drawings, underway. And I, for the record,
would like to hand to each of you a miniature version of this so
you
can see it from your seats.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Coleman, are -- is your petitioner
ready to commit on the record that this is, indeed, the
architecture
that we will see in the finished project?
MR. COLEMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are. We believe
that the project has adequately and -- minimized concerns and
adverse
impacts for the property. The three-story structure of the
building
is located 283 feet from the rear property line. We've gone beyond
county code in structuring landscaping buffers 14 to 16 feet in
height. That, when coupled with the landscaping that already
exists
for Emerald Lakes as Mr. Nino has indicated, will result in
practically a hundred percent opacity. We believe that the
property
contains impacts that are far less than the existing zoning on the
property, which allows a church and a school at 45 feet in height,
not
including a steeple or bell tower, than even if the property were
developed as a single-family or multifamily project with 41 units.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I seeing this correctly? The
three-story element is toward Airport Road, and the single-story
element is toward the single-family in the rear?
MR. COLEMAN: That's correct. The single-family -- the
single-story structure is located 60 feet from the rear property
line,
and the three-story is about a football field away. This is the
site
plan that we're willing to commit to. Again, unlike some of the
other
fezone requests you've had, you're not going to have a bubble
drawing. This is what we want to build with the setbacks, and this
is
what we'll commit to today. So if you have any questions, I can
direct it to the appropriate people, but we'd ask for your support
on
the petition today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've got a couple of questions. Are
you also willing to commit on the record that this -- this facility
will be used only as an ACLF?
MR. COLEMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are. And
practically, because the units are so small, there's not much else
but absolutely, yes. That would be a condition to the approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, understand you can always
remodel internally. The -- the other question is are you willing
to
commit that there will not be cooking in the rooms in the future?
MR. COLEMAN: Absolutely, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing -- and, again, I --
I've met with the petitioner on this and had some communication
with
others, and I'll base my decision on what's presented today. One
thing I did not discuss with you and your representatives,
Mr. Coleman, is the buffer along Airport Road. I know that we have
Type B -- is it Type B, Mr. Nino, that is required here?
MR. NINO: Yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. -- which can be kind of
sparse. Are there any plans along Airport Road to beef that up
above
the county code minimum so that people driving along the road have
nice, landscaped area there?
MR. COLEMAN: Yes, and, in fact, we have exceeded the
Buffer B requirement, and Mr. Duane will tell you exactly what
we'll
do out there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DUANE: Commissioner Hancock, we have trees on
20-foot centers as opposed to 30-foot centers, so we've
substantially
exceeded your minimum requirements as we have in the rear buffer
areas.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The rear buffer I'm very aware
of. I just had not discussed the --
MR. DUANE: We -- we compressed them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers? Any other questions from
the board members?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, just a comment. I have
met with the petitioners outside of this forum, and as required by
law, I'll base my decision solely on the information provided
during
today's public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As will I.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As will I.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve Petition
PUD-96-9.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second by
Commissioner Matthews. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #1285
ORDINANCE 96-61 RE PETITION PUD-84-18(2) JOE LACOURSIERE OF GATGO
CO.,
REPRESENTING ROBERT VOCISANO, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT OF
THE
SOUTHERLAND CENTER PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE MAXIMUM
BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THREE (3) STORIES OVER PARKING TO FOUR (4)
STORIES
ABOVE MEAN FLOOD ELEVATION FOR TRACTS 2.1 AND 2.2 IN THE SAID
SUTHERLAND CENTER PUD WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWESET CORNER OF
PINE
RIDGE ROAD AND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 75 - ADOPTED WITH A PEAKED ROOF
AND
ANY ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME
Next item, 12(C) -- 12(B)(5), Petition PUD-84-18(2).
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record, planning services.
You may recall that this petition was continued for two weeks. It
has
to do with the Sutherland PUD, that portion of the Sutherland PUD
that
is currently vacant. It's the majority of the Sutherland PUD,
which
as you know, is at the corner of Pine Ridge and 1-75. You have the
Waffle House, you have the Burger (sic), you have a Shell gas
station,
you have Cappy's, you have Chevron, and you have the Knight's Inn
along the back. So basically the balance of the property is vacant
as
proposed for this development.
The revision to the PUD, which limits height to three
stories over parking, is a revision that would have this building
established at four feet above -- four stories above grade. The --
the executive summary suggested that the height -- the height that
would result from that is 40 -- is 50 feet. That is incorrect.
The
-- the height will probably be something more like 45 feet, and
the
reduction -- the reduction that you got really doesn't show all of
the
architectural -- this perspective (indicating), I believe, shows
that
the height would be 40 feet to the ceiling, and we take half the
distance to the roof. You'll probably have another 5 feet, so
we're
dealing with a -- a height that's about 45 feet.
The executive summary indicated -- addressed one of your
concerns; namely, what are the heights that are allowed in the
other
activity centers. And we noted in the executive summary that the
Vineyards to the east of the 1-75 that that PUD allows motels at a
hundred feet; Astron Plaza, which is immediately across the street,
recently was approved for 42 feet of height; and two PUDs that are
in
the northwest and the southwest quadrants of 1-75 and Pine Ridge
have
two vacant PUDs, one allows 50 feet and the other allows three
stories
over parking.
So the Planning Commission when they reviewed this
unanimously recommended its approval to this board that the
amendment
be allowed with four stories above grade. Mr. Lacoursiere has
given
you -- provided -- provided an architectural perspective and has
also
provided a site plan. And if you look at that site plan, you will
see
that the building is oriented some distance from the
agriculturally-zoned land to the south, and that's not by design,
but
that's because that land really can't be built on because of its
environmental sensitivity.
But nonetheless, it distances this commercial
development from any possible future residential development by a
substantially large parcel of land. The balance of the south
development is opposite -- or contiguous to the Seagate Baptist
Church. Your site plan, if you look at it, shows a 10-foot
landscape
buffer. That will be -- have to be corrected, because the -- both
the
Land Development Code and the Sutherland PUD itself requires a 20-
foot
landscape buffer along Pine Ridge Road.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if
the other board members have questions, but it appears the
questions
we raised at the end of September when this first came to us have
been
answered, and they've presented us with the information we've
requested. I don't know what the comfort level is. I don't know
that
I need to hear a whole lot from the petitioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, too, was -- I think I had
hopes of holding Mr. Lacoursiere to fixing a lot of problems that
aren't on the site, and I don't think that's practical, and I don't
think it's legally possible. So as far as the -- the configuration
of
the site and so forth, I think with a -- with the four-story
maximum,
I'm -- I'm a little more comfortable than I was.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions?
Do we have speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve
Petition PUD-84-18(2).
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I did want to ask this board if
they wanted to have the petitioner commit to the architectural
rendering that we have before us, because this does have the peaked
roofs and so forth that we've -- we've been looking for in the past
so
that we don't have those flat roofs and so forth.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I appreciate that, because I
certainly had assumed that, and that would be inappropriate, but
that's a condition of my support.
MR. LACOURSIERE: Joe Lacoursiere for the petitioner.
We have no concerns about doing something similar to this. I don't
know if this is a finalized design, but we will have -- not have a
flat roof; we will have a raised roof similar to the Comfort Inn
and
Suites' behind the Cracker Barrel at 951. The front elevation is
still being played with. It looks a little exotic to me to be
truthful with you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But you are committing on the record
to having a peaked roof?
MR. LACOURSIERE: Yes, we are.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- and what you're doing actually
on this petition is -- is swapping a ground floor of parking for a
ground floor of units, hotel units?
MR. LACOURSIERE: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, this will be subject
to whatever architectural control standards are in place at that
time
if this board should adopt them so --
MR. LACOURSIERE: Right. That's no problem.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
MR. LACOURSIERE: Thank you very much.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 96-62 CREATING THE LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES PENDING VOTER APPROVAL
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 12(C) 1). Representative
Saunders, your -- your tax proposal here, I think this is the
ordinance for that.
We'll take a quick break while we switch court
reporters.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Okay. I have a handout, so
I'll have that presented to you while we're on break.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Before we start hearing this
petition, this is the subject of a political campaign. What we're
doing here today is just merely answering the question of whether
we're going to pass this ordinance or not. We are not going to get
into a political debate here today. We're not going to have a
presentation by either side on the merits of the green space tax.
We're simply going to talk about whether or not we're going to
enact
this ordinance today.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The -- The good news is that I have about two minutes' worth of
material to present to the board, and then I will -- I will sit
down.
I want to thank the commission for advertising this ordinance and
giving us the opportunity to present the ordinance to you today.
I have two areas of change to the draft that you have in
front of you. The first one is dealing with a development of a
master
plan, and it was the intent of all the parties involved in this --
this -- in this effort that a master plan would be developed, but
it's
not mandated in the ordinance. And I have an additional power for
the
Land Acquisition Advisory Board which is outlined in the memorandum
that I've just handed to you that would provide for the development
of
a master plan, and I'll read this very quickly for the record.
"The Land Acquisition Advisory Board shall develop an
overall master plan to ensure the most effective and efficient
green
space acquisition program to accomplish the goals and objectives
contained herein.
"The proposed master plan shall be submitted to the
Board of County Commissioners for review and approval by resolution
of
the Collier County Commission.
"The Board of County Commissioners is authorized to
accept or modify the proposed master plan as deemed appropriate.
The
master plan shall be reviewed by the Land Acquisition Advisory
Board
and the Board of County Commissioners annually.
"The Land Acquisition Advisory Board shall only
recommend for acquisition those parcels of land, the acquisition of
which shall be deemed consistent with the approved master plan
unless
a compelling reason is provided by the Land Acquisition Advisory
Board."
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if this were to pass, that
would be the first charge of the Land Acquisition Board?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The Land Acquisition Advisory
Board would be required to develop the master plan. It's
anticipated
that there would probably be as much as a year between the -- the
appointment of the board and the collection of sufficient funds to
begin any acquisition program. So there's -- there's definitely
enough time for that.
We wanted to make sure that this plan was reviewed on
a -- on a regular basis, and we also wanted to make sure that
acquisitions were consistent with that plan.
Now, we did give the county commission the leeway to
vary from that plan, but we've indicated that that can only be if
there are compelling reasons provided to the county commission for
that. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm. In earlier conversations that --
that we've had on this subject, we had, I know, discussed whether
or
not we were going to make a master plan or preidentify properties,
put
them on a selection list, that sort of thing, and it was my
understanding at that time that the general feeling was that if --
if
you did that in advance, then you would be doing something similar
to
the -- the CARL project where you identified properties but you
haven't yet bought them and, therefore, you cloud them and so --
Now,
is this --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is this what we're doing if you make a
master plan? Is --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Not -- Not necessarily. I
think what -- what is contemplated is that the advisory board will
develop some plan of action, and this could be a plan of action
that
shows what areas of the county are not developed, what areas may be
suitable for acquisition without identifying specific parcels. But
I
think that -- that at some point in time obviously specific parcels
will be identified, and we just want to make sure that it's not an
ad hoc -- here's a parcel here, here's an acre here, but that there
is
an overall concept in plan for those parcels to fit into.
For example, there's been an effort in -- in Collier
County for a number of years to develop bikeways and pathway
through
Collier County. I think that's the Southwest Florida Land
Preservation Trust that's been involved in that, and they developed
a
bit of a plan to accomplish that goal.
The Land Acquisition Advisory Board would be given the
charge to develop a plan on how to best use these tax dollars that
would be spent by the county commission.
The next set of changes -- and these are just real, real
technical, minor changes, but in the criteria that you have
attached
to the ordinance which become part of the ordinance, on page 23 of
the
criteria, on subpart C we have on the original document the
term "public support," and this is for issues such as maintenance
of -- of those parcels. And we intended "public support" to mean
support from the general public, but "public support" has a certain
connotation to it. It sounds like that's government support when
we
talk about public. So we changed that -- the word "public." We
deleted that and put in the word "donated support" instead of
"public
support," and we deleted "public" four times in that -- those four
sections underneath C on page 23.
And then for consistency, on page 25, Roman numeral III,
again, there was on C the reference to "public support." We've
deleted "public" and put the word "donated" so that it's clear that
we're talking about private efforts to provide maintenance for the
properties.
Those are the only changes that we would ask to be
inserted in the draft that's in front of you.
With that, I understand that we're not going to be
talking about the merits of this question. Mr. Barton did have one
minute's worth of -- of comment on why we're -- we're doing this.
It
won't take more than a minute. But if you want us to not do that,
we're -- we're certainly '-
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's hear from Mr. Barton.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Mr. Barton.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- I'm going to preface
that by saying, if we're going to get into a pro and con of why we
should do the tax, I'm going to take some time to talk to the other
side. I thought today all we were going to do was look at this
ordinance. If we're going to look at the ordinance, that's fine.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That -- That's fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if you want to talk for a
while on the pros and cons of the tax, I'll be happy to do that. I
just want everybody to know, as soon as his pro's on the thing, I
expect to have some time to say the other side.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. I -- No. We're not going to
allow that.
MR. BARTON: My -- My intent would be to follow the
chairman's direction. Let me simply say that -- that we are in
support of this ordinance today, recognize and understand that
adoption of this ordinance on the part of the county commission is
not
intended nor do we view it as any endorsement of the county
commission
of the process itself; rather, we see it as an opportunity to
present
to the voters of Collier County a clear picture of what they will
be
looking at on November the 5th, and we -- we ask that you do indeed
pass this ordinance today for the purpose of giving the voters a
clear
picture of what is intended if they choose to support this process
on
November 5.
I'd like to call your attention also to one other thing
that I just happened to see yesterday that I think is an unintended
instance, and that is on the criteria of the individuals to be
appointed to this LLAB [sic], and if you'll look -- turn to page 7
in -- that's the page 7 of the county commission agenda packet,
which
is actually page 5 in the ordinance, and you'll note under the land
use planner and landscape architect -- in those two instances, it
calls for a mandatory advanced degree. If you'll look up above,
you'll see under ecologist and some of the other criteria, it is a
preferred advanced degree, and I think that it would be appropriate
if
we carried that preference of advanced degree all the way through
the
document rather than creating a mandatory requirement on landscape
architect and land use planner.
There's several reasons for that. Number one, it -- it
may narrow the field to such an extent that we can't find the
candidates we need to fill those slots. Certainly I think an
advanced
degree is -- is preferred, but I hate to see us make it mandatory
in
those two instances.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a good point. Thank you, sir.
MR. BARTON: With that, I simply encourage the
commission to support the ordinance, once again, to give the voters
of
Collier County a clear picture of what their vote will mean on
November the 5th. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Public speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Several. Mr. Erlichman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Once again, public speakers need to
understand that we're not going to talk about this -- We're not
going
to run a political campaign here today. We're just going to talk
about whether or not we're going to pass this ordinance.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Gil Erlichman. I reside in east Naples,
taxpayer and elector in Collier County, and I'm speaking for TAG.
I just heard Mr. Barton say he wanted to make sure that
the voters have a clear picture of what they're voting on. Well, I
already have sent in or handed -- gave Mary Morgan my absentee
ballot
because I am a poll work -- I work at the polls. And since I work
out
of my precinct, I have to vote absentee. So I vote -- I gave the -
_
sent my -- gave my ballot yesterday to Mary Horgan's office. And I
voted in the ballot on Ordinance No. 96-34 as published here, not
on
any amended ordinance or any dis -- or anything else. I had not
seen
this in this executive summary when I voted.
This executive summary item is -- concerns that the
Board of County Commissioners consider the attached ordinance
creating
the Land Acquisition Advisory Board pursuant to Ordinance No. 96-
34.
Well, what is this ordinance number? There's no number on it.
It's
an ordinance. What is it?
Another point --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could -- Could we answer that
question? I think, Mr. Weigel, it doesn't get a number unless it's
adopted?
MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. Another point. The blue pages --
If you turn to the second page on the blue page, it says "approved
by," and it's printed, S, slash, Butt L. Saunders; date, September
30,
1996; Representative Butt L. Saunders. I thought, "How can someone
present an item and approve it?" I thought something to be
approved
in the agenda has to be done by the staff. So, in other words,
Mr. Saunders approved his own item for the agenda.
Third point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a story behind that one,
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, there is.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, Miss -- Miss Mac'Kie, I expect an
answer like that from you because you're att -- you're -- you're an
attorney.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I thought you would want an
answer if you asked a question.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Yeah. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Let's go to the original 96-34
ordinance, Section 6. Sunset, bracket, termination of ordinance.
This ordinance and any ordinance amending this ordinance shall
expire,
terminate, and no longer exist after January 31, 2001. Clear,
explicit, succinct.
Let's go to this either amended ordinance or companion
ordinance or whatever you want to call it that is on the executive
summary today in Section 11. Sunset, bracket, termination of this
ordinance.
Now, they're referring to this ordinance, or they're
referring to this one?
This ordinance -- again, which one? -- and any ordinance
amending this ordinance shall sunset, bracket, terminate, and no
longer exist after all funds collected pursuant to Collier County
Ordinance No. 96-34 have been expended for capital expenditures and
the purposes set forth in Collier County Ordinance 96-34.
I don't see any date in there --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you want --
MR. ERLICHMAN: -- for the sunset.
Just a minute. Let me finish, please.
I don't see any date, and I don't -- In other words,
they're talking about if they have -- This is the way I read it.
And,
of course, remember, I voted on this ordinance. I didn't vote on
this. So hundreds of people who have voted on -- with their
absentee
ballots do not know about this amended ordinance or whatever you
want
to call it.
According to this Section 11, if there are funds left,
say, the year 2001 when it's supposed to terminate, they can keep
going on and on and on and purchasing because it says they must --
if
there's no -- if the funds have not been expended by that time,
they
have to keep going and spend the funds. This is my interpretation
interpretation as a layman and not as a lawyer.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, that's my
interpretation too because I wouldn't want them not to spend the
money. I mean, after they've collected it, I would very much like
for
it to be spent on the purposes --
MR. ERLICHMAN: So, therefore, there's no expiration
date with this amendment. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My -- I guess to answer
that -- and -- and maybe, Butt, you can help here. Does it say
somewhere else in the proposed ordinance that collection will stop
at
some point?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the first one that he
read, was the 2001.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Collection stops, but once we've
collected it --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I asked -- I asked
Representative Saunders.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't mind --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah. That -- that --
that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll finish my sentence. So if
you don't mind, we'd like to -- we will spend it after it's
collected.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's correct. The ballot
question says that the tax ends after four years. That's an
absolute.
The tax season's after four years.
The funds may not be expended after four years. The
commission may still be looking at parcels or you may be -- You
know,
after that four-year period, funds may still be coming in from the
collections prior to the expiration of it. There may be interest
earnings that are still in the account. You have the ability to
continue to expend those funds until they're gone, and then you can
dissolve the Land Acquisition Advisory Board. But the funds
themselves, the collection will cease after four years, and that's
in
the ballot question.
So there is no lack of an expiration date on the -- on
the ballot question, but the Land Acquisition Advisory Board will
stay
in effect until you're finished with that Land Acquisition Advisory
Board.
MR. ERLICHHAN: How can it stay in effect if the -- if
the -- if the ordinance states that it -- it ends -- this ordinance
and any ordinance amending this ordinance shall expire, terminate,
and
no longer exist after January 31, 20017
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The ordinance that expires is
Ordinance 96-34 which is the ordinance that calls for the ballot
question. That ballot question and that ordinance expires after
the
four-year period. That's cast in stone, cannot be changed by
anybody.
The Land Acquisition Advisory Board is only a technical
board to help you in the expenditure of those funds, and that board
will stay in effect until you've finished expending those funds.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Agoston.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Representative Saunders, you're
saying, though, that this ordinance we're addressing today does not
amend 96-34; it merely supplements it?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me express my one concern
on -- on that item, is obviously if there are funds there, you need
some mechanism to deal with it. If you get such a small amount of
money, yet not zero, but such a small amount of money that it can't
realistically purchase any piece of property, the ordinance doesn't
allow it to be spent on anything else. So you could have $10 in
there, and the land acquisition authority or board, or whatever the
title is, would last in perpetuity. You could never go buy land
with
ten bucks, and -- and I don't know how we fix that but --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah. Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I think there's a genuine
concern there.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah. At least theoretically
in terms of the expenditure of those funds, if you get to the end
of
the four-year period or five years or whatever it is that -- that
you're expending those funds and there's a small amount of money
left
over, you can still engage in capital expenditures on those
properties
to expend those funds.
For example, there may be enough money left over to take
an area and -- and put in some picnic tables and a -- and a walkway
or
something. Obviously if it's $10, then I don't think anybody will
mind that money going back into the general fund, but anything over
$10 will have to be spent on capital projects.
CHAIRKLAN NORRIS: Mr. Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I speak for
TAG.
I'd like to echo Gil Erlichman's remarks earlier, that
you essentially disenfranchise me. I already voted absentee
ballot,
and I'm not quite sure whether you really should have the authority
to
just simply disregard a whole group of people already voted. I
mean,
that's one -- It's an opinion.
Further, I'd like to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether you
consider talking about the spiraling tax load.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not today.
MR. AGOSTON: It's a political issue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. And we're not going to --
MR. AGOSTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- talk about that today.
MR. AGOSTON: One additional point I would like to make
is in response to Mr. Barot (phonetic). He appears to denigrate
you
in a way by not considering your action today as influential on the
voting public. I must believe that you are the highest elected
officials of this county. People look up to you, and your actions
at
least should be an example to the rest of us because you are --
actually have access to a lot more information than the normal
voting
public.
That's all I can say. It's a shame. You know, I
normally don't put an awful lot of preparation into these things.
I
actually put in a lot of preparation. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Shanahan and then Ms. Varner.
MR. SHANAHAN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and
Commissioners and Chairman. My name is Dick Shanahan. I'm from
Marco
Island, and all of my notes and all of my thoughts and all of my
preparation will have to be saved for another day.
However, I would say and hitch a ride, if I may, on
what's been said. We are concerned, and there's a strong feeling
in
the community, that this ordinance should not go forward until the
vote is taken. There's a very strong feeling that the ballots are
all
over the world, so to speak, because they've been mailed and not
necessarily but -- my words but words that have been expressed to
me
that this is deception at best, and -- and right up until the llth
hour, a major change, and I would suggest to each of you that they
would continue to make these changes right up until ballot time if
they were allowed.
So based on -- on this situation, I would suggest very
strongly to you that you do not approve the ordinance today, and --
and look at it again if it ever has the opportunity to come back.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Varner and then Mr. Simonik.
MS. VARNER: Good afternoon. My name is Jane Varner. I
have to say again I, as a citizen of Collier County, feel totally
cut
out of this whole conversation. I was here the last time. We're
so
restricted. It's so tiny on what you can talk about. I -- I don't
understand this process.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me explain --
MS. VARNER: I don't --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- it to you, Hiss Varner.
MS. VARNER: Well, okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me.
MS. VARNER: Yes. Do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- The item is an ordinance,
whether or not to adopt the ordinance, and if you're going to
complain
that you're not allowed to talk about the tax question, well, look
at
what it says here. We're dealing with the ordinance. We're not
dealing with the political issue --
MS. VARNER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- of the tax question; okay?
MS. VARNER: Then could I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we're not -- we're not limited
on -- We're not denying you the opportunity to speak your -- your
mind
on the tax question, but that's not the item we're dealing with
here
today.
MS. VARNER: Okay. Could I ask, then, when is the
public going to be allowed to have some input on this?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: At the voting booth.
MS. VARNER: Only then? We have many questions to ask.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we have -- we have a section of
our agenda that is called public comment, and that would be an
appropriate time for you to come up here and voice your opinion on
that. That's what it's for, but this is not. We're talking about
an
ordinance. That's what it says right here. (indicating)
MS. VARNER: Okay. Then could you -- Then you're saying
that at public comment we should come up and talk about green
space?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you'd like, that's your privilege.
MS. VARNER: I will be back.
UNKNOWN VOICE: Next Tuesday --
MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, just -- just for an
information --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait. Mr. Shanahan --
MR. SHANAHAN: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm afraid --
MR. SHANAHAN: Fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know better.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Simonik and then Mr. Perkins.
MR. SIHONIK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is Michael Simonik. I'm the environmental
policy coordinator for The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the
new
and improved Conservancy. I'm here speaking on behalf of our
30-member board of directors, our over 5,000 family members, and
our
now 538 volunteers, up 100 volunteers in the past six months.
We strongly encourage this board to adopt the
implementing ordinance for the urban green space referendum that's
going to the voters in November just so that they are educated on
the
issue and that they know what they're voting on. And there is a
strong feeling amongst our members and in the community that this
ordinance be passed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Simonik, you -- you
have -- your organization has done some mailings on this; is that
correct?
MR. SIMONIK: We have our lead story in our Conservancy
Update, our quarterly newsletter. It has three pages endorsing
this
urban green space program, encouraging our members to vote on that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you registered as a
political action committee or political committee in the State of
Florida?
MR. SIMONIK: We are registered with the IRS as a
501(C)(3) organization, and we are allowed under those laws to
lobby
for issues.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. SIMONIK: Called the IRS. Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That wasn't the question, but
thanks.
MR. DORRILL: And then Ms. Barsh.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not Miller Boulevard.
MR. PERKINS: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
no. No. I'm going to try to stay --
UNKNOWN VOICE: Perkins Boulevard.
MR. PERKINS: For the record, A1 Perkins, Belle Meade
Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. I try to make
that just as clear as I possibly can.
The only thing I can do is echo what Mr. Erlichman and
what Ty had to say and also Mr. Shanahan, but he also left out one
thing, that there's debates around the community throughout this
county that Mr. Shanahan is involved in, trying to enlighten the
people as to just where they're getting worked over. "Worked over"
is
the word.
Mr. Norris, you brought up a very good point about a
cloud. When you earmark a piece of property, you put a cloud over
it,
and if you hold still for two years, the property value declines
because there's nobody out there that's going to buy it.
Maintenance was addressed here. Also picnic tables.
Wasn't anything said about that. But what I would advocate is to
get
a clear picture, a clear picture to -- of all the people who are
going
to pay this tax throughout this county, and needless to say the
people
who can least afford it are the ones who are going to pay for it.
As far as the board goes, every board that I know of in
this community is top-heavy with environmentalists.
One other statement, and I'll leave out of here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does that include this board?
Just checking.
MR. PERKINS: The point being, it apparently pays very
well to be an environmentalist in this community.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that right, Hike?
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many more speakers do we
have?
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh is your final registered
speaker.
MS. BARSH: Frances Barsh. I am a resident, taxpayer,
and voter in Collier County, and also a member of TAG, but I am a
voter. And, frankly, I -- I too feel disenfranchised, but there's
some questions that I have.
On September 17 I believe the body that was petitioning
was the Keep Collier County Paradise Committee?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They made a presentation.
MS. BARSH: With --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Their president did.
MS. BARSH: -- Mr. Barton speaking. Today we have Don't
East Coast the West Coast Committee. Is this the same committee?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know.
MS. BARSH: How was this advertised?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I didn't read the public
notice but -- MR. WEIGEL: The title to the ordinance is what is
advertised with the public hearing date, the place of hearing,
things
of that nature.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the cost of
advertising? And I believe on the September 17 meeting someone
other
than the public --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My checkbook's out.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- offered to pay for that.
I assume the public is not picking up the tab for that advertising?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They certainly will not be
picking up the tab.
MR. WEIGEL: Which advertising are --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, on the 17th of
September I raised the issue, and Commissioner Mac'Kie at that time
offered to pay for --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Graciously offered.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I at least get a full
sentence out?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. God.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- offered to pay for the
advertising because we didn't think it was appropriate that the
public
pay for an item they have yet to decide on. I'm wondering, how
much
did the advertising cost, and when will that bill be presented?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know exactly what the advertising
costs. I -- perhaps -- it -- It was, I think, paid for through the
county manager's office as a board-directed ordinance to be
advertised.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I did volunteer to make a
contribution to the sponsoring organization, and I've asked my
secretary -- she's in touch with Neil's to find out what the cost
was
of the advertising so I can make that contribution to the -- to the
proposing -- to the pack who then will reimburse the county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I just want to make
sure that that -- that's done because the question was -- and the
question was raised, and what the board directed that day was that
the
public not pay for that advertisement.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it appears we have right
now. So just make sure we correct that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine.
MR. WEIGEL: We had -- We had a board-directed date, and
so we had to, you know, do certain procedures to get it advertised
with the ten-day --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's important we'll --
MR. WEIGEL: -- requirement.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- pay interest on the amount of
days that have --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just don't want it to be
forgotten.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not forgotten. It's already
been taken care of. It's already been asked. The question has
been
asked.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Barsh, please.
MS. BARSH: Will -- Will this be coming out of your
public salary?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I -- I have a public and a
private salary that all go into one checking account, and it will
Come
out of that checking account.
MS. BARSH: Which one?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I only have one, ma'am, and I
think that's not any of your business.
MS. BARSH: But there's two sources of earning, public
and private?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's Commissioner Mac'Kie's
money either way, so I think that's her prerogative.
MS. BARSH: Well, public is tax money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I can either spend it on
groceries --
MS. BARSH: So the point is made that it's not going to
be tax money. It is tax money if it's coming out of the salary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Barsh, it's your five
minutes --
MS. BARSH: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so we can debate it, but
the point is, as soon as the tax money has Commissioner Hac'Kie's
name
written on the check, it's no longer tax money. It's Commissioner
Hac'Kie's money, and what she chooses to do with that -- I don't
happen to agree with her on '-
MS. BARSH: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- this one, but it's her
choice.
MS. BARSH: Okay. But my real question is -- is, for
which body was this -- was this advertising set? Was it for Keep
Collier Paradise, or was it for a body that is called Don't East
Coast
the West Coast?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why are you '-
MS. BARSH: Which body?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why are you asking us? We're not the
committee.
MS. BARSH: Well, this is a question to consider.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. BARSH: The other is, in this new ordinance, they
say that the term "public support" will be changed to "donated
support," implying a private support. I would like to have that
identified.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's up to them. It's their
question to present.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're -- You're asking us questions,
Hiss Barsh, that are not our --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The ordinance --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- business.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is the only issue today.
MS. BARSH: Okay. But this is something that should be
identified if it's in the ordinance.
Three, there was a question as to if there's money left
over after the four years, then there should be a consideration
that
this can be continued, the -- the amount of money collected in
taxes
could be continued being spent. What's wrong with returning it to
the
taxpayers after four years? Why not have a sunset date on this
ordinance and say, if there is money left in any balance, return
this
to the taxpayers. It does not have to be spent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Once again, the county is not running
this program, Hiss Barsh. You -- you need to '-
MS. BARSH: I am talking about --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me.
MS. BARSH: -- the ordinance --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me.
MS. BARSH: -- and the language in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me finish. It's -- It's
Representative Saunders' tax proposal. You go and talk to him
about
these things. We're not doing it. We're not making this up. We
don't sit here and make this up. It's not our proposal. It's not
our
proposal. It's theirs.
MS. BARSH: But I'm not talking about -- I'm talking
about the language of the ordinance that was created within the
county, within the county --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I '-
MS. BARSH: -- government --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm talk '-
MS. BARSH: -- by the county attorney.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm talking about the very same
language. It's not the county's program, period.
MS. BARSH: I am talking not about the program. I am
limiting myself to the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your time is up, Hiss Barsh.
MS. BARSH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. BARSH: But I think that the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for your time.
MS. BARSH: -- ordinance language should be changed --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then '-
MS. BARSH: -- so that it expires in four years, and any
money left over should be returned to the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Talk to '-
MS. BARSH: That should be --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- Representative Saunders about it '-
MS. BARSH: -- included in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- because it's his ordinance.
MS. BARSH: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman --
UNKNOWN VOICE: Why vote on it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have kind of a couple of
overall comments on this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of overall
comments on the proposed ordinance. Then I have some very specific
questions within the ordinance itself.
I -- I do think it's a legitimate concern, the absentee
ballot issue that was raised. We have -- The first ones went out,
I
think, September 19, and some of those went overseas and all, and
this
does change what -- what it is they were under the impression they
were voting on. And for the vast majority of the people to
solidify
it or put it in a clearer picture -- and I understand the intent
there, and -- and I appreciate the intent is to try to clarify the
picture, but I'm concerned that you have people who happen to have
already voted on their absentee ballot may have an impression or a
perception that they're voting on something different.
I -- I also do fear and I -- and I just -- I'm sure the
board will correct this, but I fear the perception of the Board of
County Commissioners' approval of this ordinance -- the public's
perception of that being that we somehow are supporting -- that we
are
somehow supporting the issue itself, and -- and I know today we can
collectively or individually say that's not the case. I just want
to
be very careful because the public may perceive that.
And I do think it's a concern -- I'm not sure how we
answer the question, if there is a small amount of money left in
four
years that can't realistically -- realistically be used for the
expenses allowed in here. Representative Saunders has indicated if
it's a very small amount, we can shift it to the general fund. I'm
not sure legally, even if it's a small amount, we can do that. And
so
there needs to be, in my mind, a clearer line drawn. Perhaps at a
particular dollar amount you -- you end that committee, or perhaps
after the four years you end the committee or something happens --
has
to happen there. But according to the letter of the law in this
ordinance, if there's ten bucks left -- and I know that's not your
intention. I'm just saying, if you're going to pass an ordinance,
we've got to make that clear so someone four years from now doesn't
wrestle with that issue. If there is $10 left in there, that board
can continue on and on and on forever.
Let me run through some of the questions I have in
specifics of the ordinance. And then, Mr. Weigel, perhaps you can
think about the one I just raised and -- and how we might address
that
because I don't think that's something we want to --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- end up with future -- our
future boards.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Before you start,
Commissioner Constantine, I hope it's not your intent to go in
there
and start modifying that ordinance because I'm not going to get
into
that. This is not the county commission's ordinance.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the county commission
is being asked to pass an ordinance and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- And we need to either take it
like it is up or down, and that's it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's not how we
generally do things and -- I mean, again, if I have questions on an
ordinance I'm being asked to vote on, then I'm certainly going to
inquire about them, and -- and I have several questions. And if we
have any other ordinance we've ever passed, it's never been an
up-or-down, black-or-white, take-it-or-leave-it. We have modified
ordinance after ordinance week after week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: May I respond?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- the -- The distinction here is
that this is not our ordinance. Certainly if we're bringing
forward
an ordinance, it -- it's valid for us to sit and discuss and modify
and -- and correct it to our satisfaction. We're being asked to --
to
approve or disapprove the ordinance brought forth by the committee.
That's what I was trying to get across to Miss Barsh. It's not our
prerogative, in my opinion now, to sit here and modify what they
have
brought to us but merely to up or down vote it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand your point, and
I know early in January or February sometime when Represent --
Representative Saunders first brought the item to us we said,
"We ' re
not going to create an ordinance. If you want to bring something
to
us, great. We'll look at it." However, I do have a number of
questions on the ordinance -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and that's where our
opinion differs.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't vote on something in
good conscience without understanding everything. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On page 5 in our agenda
packet, Section 1, No. 1, it says all properties shall be held by
the
county in perpetuity.
I don't see in here -- and I have a question as to --
how are we going to pay the annual maintenance cost if we hold that
property in perpetuity, Mr. Dotrill, Mr. Weigel?
MR. DORRILL: There -- There's currently not a provision
for the cost associated with preparing the management plan or
whatever
minor cost that we might have to make sure that it is incorporated
under our general liability insurance policy or some minor exotics
removal program aside from whatever might be donated in kind to us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we don't know is the
answer?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The answer's either general fund
or special taxing district.
MR. DORRILL: At this point that's not resolved.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the answer.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But with one other note, that --
that it's a factor -- in weighting the preferability of the
property
is -- is whether or not there's donated maintenance. So that might
not be a problem.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But as I look -- You know, I
mean, it's in perpetuity, and -- and there may be some good-hearted
people out there, but they don't live forever. No -- Nobody does.
And so if we're going to hold this for hundreds of years, there --
there's a cost associated.
Do we have any plan, Mr. Dotrill or Mr. Weigel, how
we'll pay for the last lost ad valorem tax revenue for -- when --
When
things are taken off the tax rolls, is there a plan right now how
we're going to make that up? MR. DORRILL: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Same page, down at the
bottom, Section 1, Subsection 4, the Board of Commissioners shall
provide appropriate staff support; ensure that all applicable laws
and
regulations pertaining to the acquisition are followed; negotiate
and
close all purchase transactions.
Do we have any estimates on what the cost to taxpayers
will be for that, and do we have any idea how we're going to pay
for
that?
MR. DORRILL: I have some from three different
departments. We -- We are contemplating between one and one and a
half FTEs split between the real property management department and
the natural resources department it would take to effectuate the
program. Those would generally be in your general fund unless
there's
some additional or new revenue that is associated with that.
Ms. Taylor in real property has a concern, and had asked
me to address it when I had an opportunity to speak, about a two-
day
turnaround provision that is in the ordinance and just wanting me
to
advise you that under certain circumstances we are statutorily
required to get one or two independent appraisals and that the
staff
valuation and potential appraisal time could be beyond the two days
specified.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we anticipate adding
staff, and again we're not sure how we'd pay for that? Ad valorem,
I
guess?
MR. DORRILL: It -- It is indicated to me that it will
be requested because those positions do not exist.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Mr. Commissioner, could I just
address that issue just to amplify what -- what Mr. Dotrill has
indicated? And we may need some assistance from Mr. Weigel on this
because there's a legal issue associated with it.
But the cost of acquisition, appraisal work, and I
believe staff time also -- all the costs of acquisition is
considered
part of the capital costs of a project and can be paid for out of
the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So like we do with TDC
dollars? When we have our capital project staff do the work on the
beach renourishment, TDC dollars pays for that portion. We can do
the
same thing?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's my understanding. Yes,
sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, is that your
legal interpretation?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I believe that's correct. That is my
interpretation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Top of page 6 of our agenda
packet -- and -- and Representative Saunders, I need a little help
from you, I think, here. It says the Naples -- lands purchased by
the
City of Naples, if the city council adopts an enabling ordinance,
they
may create their own acquisition advisory board or enter into an
interlocal agreement.
I think that was added since we talked about this a
couple of months ago and I'm -- I mean, are we duplicating a
service
here unless there's an interlocal agreement, if the city does one
and
we do one and -- How does that work? Because I don't really follow
that.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The -- The county and the city
have the option to do one of two things. One, you can enter into
an
interlocal agreement where the city basically says to the county
commission, "We're going to use your Land Acquisition Advisory
Board.
They're going to make recommendations to us, the city council."
The
city council will still have total control over the expenditure of
__
of those funds.
On the other hand, the city council may elect to create
their own Land Acquisition Advisory Board. They may feel that
their
own board would be more informative to them as a city council. The
option is there. They're not going to do both.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. So a chunk of the
money, 12 1/2; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I believe 12 1/2 percent under
your current formula would go to the City of Naples under state
law.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And they would -- And that's
12 1/2 percent of whatever is collected countywide?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And they would
decide --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Don't --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- continue to decide --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Don't hold me to that exact
number --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what they wanted to do
with that?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: -- because that's a number
that's a little difficult to put your finger on, but I believe it's
about 12 1/2 percent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the city would ultimately
decide that that wouldn't fall under the purview of the county
commission?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's correct.
MR. PERKINS: Where's Everglades?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Section 3, same page, 6 of
the agenda. We -- We get into the makeup of the board, and -- and
I've got the same question I'm going to ask on several of these.
Biologists, and it gives a description, practicing professional
biologists with a minimum of a B.A., B.S. in biosciences, blah,
blah,
blah. I'm wondering, how many of those do we have in the county?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Probably a lot.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe. I mean, seriously.
Out of -- Out of 200,000 people, I mean, do we have 100 biologists?
200 biologists?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I know of one from Lee County
that comes down occasionally, but I -- I don't know of -- of --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-oh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ohhhh, nooo.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I don't -- I don't know the
answer to that question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let me just repeat the
question on a couple of these. Ecologists, again, a practicing
professional, has some certain requirements. I just can't imagine
we
have thousands of these in the county, all --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- although with Realtor and
attorney, I'm sure we have millions -- millions of both of those.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: We may not have millions. It
just seems like we do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the same thing, water
resource specialist, engineer, land use planner -- we've got one on
the board -- landscape architect -- I'm wondering if it doesn't
narrow
the scope of who can actually perform. And I realize we have one
citizen at large from each of the commission districts, but if
there
are going to be 15 members on the board and only 5 really are
citizens
at large, I'm afraid that out of 200,000 people, the group from
which
you can get this, with the exception of Realtor and attorney, is
very,
very small, and -- and I want to be -- I -- I have a real problem
there with the makeup, I guess. I'd like to see more -- I
understand
the idea of having some expertise. I think that's absolutely a
necessity. But I hate to see only one-third of it be from the
public
at large because I know on the different committees I was on prior
to
being on the commission, just that common-sense feel was very, very
helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: And -- And, actually, use of
the word "public at large" for the five appointees is really kind
of a
misnomer because it -- it tends to imply that the other ten are not
from the public at large, but the other ten are going to be
residents
and electors in Collier County. They're going to be citizens at
large, but they're going to have the educational criteria.
I would suggest that there are going to be plenty of
people that will fit all of these educational requirements,
especially
with the change as outlined by Mr. Barton in terms of the preferred
requirement or status in terms of the advanced degree as opposed to
the requirement.
But if you get to a point where you can't find an
ecologist in Collier County with that degree who -- who's willing
to
serve, I'd be -- I'd be shocked if you ever got that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, my -- my point isn't
that --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: So I -- I don't think that's
going to happen.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point isn't that we
couldn't find them. My point is that when you look at water
resource
specialist, that's a little limiting, and -- and if -- Ten of your
members are -- or eight of your members, taking out Realtor and
attorney, are pretty limited fields. I'm not saying we can't find
them. I'm just thinking -- and -- And they are members of the
public
and electors and -- and taxpayers and all, but out of 200,000
people,
you may only have 100 or less water resource specialists, so that
one
position really is only open to one of those 100 people. And you
start breaking that down and -- and all of a sudden you've only got
five seats or seven with the other two on here that just anybody
off
the street can apply for and actually have a chance at, and even
then
those are divided into commission districts. So, you know, if
somebody's in District 3 and the o -- that's the one seat they have
an
opening for, unless they're a lawyer or Realtor and -- so I -- I'm
just -- It seems a little restrictive to me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask a question under
environmentalist in that category. It says two appointees, members
in
good standing of local or regional environmental organizations.
Does
that mean if I go out and join Friends of the Spotted Moth that I
qualify under that category?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: As long as you're in good
standing with that Friends of the Moth organization.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I pay my annual dues to the moth
association. Okay. So that -- that's really just -- Anyone who is
a
member of an environmental organization qualifies under that?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are -- Question. Is that -- Are
those two people required to be electors of Collier County?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I believe that all of the
members have to be electors of the county.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If not, do you have any
objection to putting that in here?
UNKNOWN VOICE: It's in there. It's in there.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah. It says, Said members
shall be permanent residents and electors of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 7 of the agenda item,
just below all those job descriptions -- apparently none of the
rest
of the board thinks that's restrictive. It just seems very
restrictive to me.
The Board of Commissioners may appoint as non-voting
members representatives of the city and county government. Can I
just
ask what you had in mind there?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Well, for example, the county
environmentalists or the city environmentalists, Dr. Jon Staiger,
are
people that the respective electoral -- elect -- elected bodies may
want to appoint to work with that -- those committees, but they
would
not have any vote on -- on sites to be recommended to the county
commission. It's just to get more technical support if you think
that
that support is necessary.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does -- do -- Do none of the
other board members find the format here required to fall into that
category restrictive?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't because these are -- I'd
like to get recommendations from people with expertise, and we are
the
representatives of the general electorate who will have to
represent
their interests.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think more to the point, I --
I'm -- whether I do or don't is immaterial. It's up to the voters
whether they think it's too restrictive, and if it is, don't vote
for
it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- Section 7,
reimbursement of expenses -- I know a couple of our boards have
this.
Most do not -- may receive reimbursement for expenses reasonably
incurred.
The word "junket" pops to mind. I know there are --
there are a couple that it has been effective with. I know the
Marco
Beach renourishment, they actually did -- used this much to Marco's
benefit, but I worry a little there when we start giving advisory
boards the authority to jet off somewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I -- I -- I envision the
junket up to North Naples to look at a site, but this is -- this is
typical language in your advisory boards' ordinances. They serve
without any compensation, but if you decide that -- that there's an
expense that they've incurred that they should be reimbursed for,
then -- that you can authorize that, but it has to be upon approval
of
the Board of County Commissioners. That's pretty standard. I
think
that's probably in all of your advisory board ordinances.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: More to the point, I believe it
says "prior approval." So if they go off and do it --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're on their own.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, knock yourself out,
but it says "prior approval."
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that on all the advisory
boards, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: It's on most of them we've done at least in
the last five or six years, tried to -- Some of them we have not
amended that are long before, and they just don't provide for any
reimbursement whatsoever.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Page 10 of our agenda packet, down around line 22, 23,
24. The county administrator or his designee shall prepare a
proposed
budget for the acquisition of green space.
Mr. Dotrill, is that part of your person and a half that
would be spending time on this every year?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. And there's a subsequent
recommendation that -- that we make the date March the 1st to
otherwise coincide with your typical budget submittal workshop
calendar.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I skipped one on
page 8.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: We have June 1st on line 29,
and you want to change that to March lst? Is that -- MR. DORRILL: That's what I believe the staff is
recommending.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That -- That's obviously fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I skipped the item on page 8
of the agenda packet. It talks about the terms, the initial terms,
and it sets some people up for one year, two years, and so on, so
they're staggered terms. However, it says, Thereafter each
appointment or reappointment shall be for a term of four years.
Again, I get the question of, how long is this going to
go on. I -- we -- We've been led to believe it's a four-year tax,
that there's some money in the fifth year. Obviously you don't
leave
that with no advisory board. But if we're every year reappointing
people to four years --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Well, the -- it's the same --
same -- really the same answer as before. The advisory board will
remain in existence until their function is completed and this --
the
county commission dissolves this advisory board. That may be after
the fifth year. It may be after five years and six months. I
don't
know, and no one in this room could -- could tell you that. But
you
have to have the -- the advisory board in place until the funds are
expended.
For example, there may be a situation -- I'm just
pulling an -- you know, an example out of the air. But there may
be a
situation where there's a parcel of land and it's something that
fits
into this master plan and is very important for the future of the
community, and you may be involved in negotiations that took you
longer than the -- the -- the four-year period when the tax
sunsets.
It may take you into the fifth year, and so you have to have that
flexibility to have that board available to you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- back -- I mentioned on
page 10 and, again, on page 11, just so everyone is aware of it,
that
staff time concerns me a great deal because it's not simply a sales
tax and then it disappears after four years. And we talk about
administering the activities of land acquisition; periodic written
reports; assist in the preparation of the budget; assure that all
studies, plans, and so on are forwarded to the BCC. All of that is
staff time. All that is tax dollars, I've got to assume ad valorem
tax dollars unless I'm told otherwise. You've already answered
those.
Go to the next question.
I think that concludes my questions on there. I -- I
guess I -- A couple of main concerns. One is the makeup of 15
members
I don't think is truly representative of the whole county, and I do
appreciate your attempts to get some expertise on there. I
understand
what you're trying to do. I just don't like the full makeup.
And I have a very, very strong concern with the
unanswered questions of how we're going to pay for annual
maintenance
and how we're going to pay some of the other things.
And -- and I understand your reference to just go ahead
and vote up and down on this thing, and I would ask you to vote
down
on this. And my fear is that if we pass this, it's incomplete, the
public will vote against this, and what we do is harm the green
space
effort. I don't think there's anybody in this room that doesn't
support trying to preserve green space. My -- my problem --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe some folks that are --
MR. AGOSTON: I don't. We have plenty.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quiet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think there are very few
people in this county --
MR. AGOSTON: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- who are against preserving
green space; however, I don't know that -- that this is the way to
do
it. I've outlined a number of questions, a number of concerns here
and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Make a motion so we can get it on the
floor for discussion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- That's exactly what I
was going to do, is I'm going to make a motion that we deny the
request to pass this ordinance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm going to second that to get it on
the floor for discussion because I -- I'm persuaded by the argument
that people have voted on something already that they don't
necessarily know was coming, and that's a -- that's a pretty
powerful
argument for me.
The other -- The other argument that I think is valid is
that it could be seen as tacit approval by the county commission if
we -- if we approve this ordinance today. I -- As I indicated
earlier, I don't think it's our -- the county commission's position
at
all to be in here modifying this ordinance today and trying to --
to
make changes in it today.
However, if the -- if the green space proposal that
Representative Saunders has brought forward, the sales tax
referendum
is successful in November, then it certainly is appropriate for the
county to get in here and the county commission to look at this
ordinance with a fine-tooth comb and adjust it to our satisfaction.
At that time it's appropriate. Right now I don't think it is. So
I'm -- I'm not in support of going forward with this ordinance
today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm on the -- the other
side of that, and I -- I think it's unusual. Our reasons are
fairly
similar, but we come to a different conclusion.
The people that have submitted their absentee ballots to
date did so without knowing one thing about how this is
implemented.
You voted either yes or no without knowing how your money is going
to
be spent at all, period.
UNKNOWN VOICE: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's entirely true, and -- and
this is not time for public comment, folks.
UNKNOWN VOICE: Don't speak for me then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is -- this -- What is
being -- we're being asked to do today is to inform the general
public
about the recommendations of this committee as to how these tax
dollars are going to be spent. I think by adopting an ordinance
pending voter approval and with a specific statement that the board
is
neither endorsing nor opposing the green space tax, we can present
information to the taxpayer that they can argue -- and Miss Barsh's
questions are valid, and if those questions get out there and
people
are unsure about them, guess what they're going to do? They're
going
to vote against the tax, but right now nothing is known.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, can I
ask you a question --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- along that line?
Commissioner Norris made a point that I think was a good
one, and that is, we've said we're just going to vote up and down
on
this, the way it's been presented to us. And -- And Commissioner
Norris has said what we'll have an opportunity to do if we vote
this
down, if we follow the motion, is fine-tune it. If the electors
approve the concept, we can fine-tune this, tweak it, and make it
just
right. And I'm afraid if we vote it up today, we lose that
opportunity. And -- and -- And there may be parts in here that you
have a concern with. There may not. But there may be parts in
here
that today is not the appropriate time to address but after
November
5, if it were to pass, would be, and we lose that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- Thatws a very good point
because if we approve this ordinance today and modify it after
November the 5th, or whenever that is, then wewre going to get the
criticism that we started changing the game rules after they
approve
the tax.
UNKNOWN VOICE: Here, here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So thatws a very good point.
Now, the other thing is, herews the ordinance as
proposed. Itws in the public records and in -- in the publicws
ability to -- to view, whether or not this -- this board approves
it
today. So I donwt understand your concern, but just -- just
because
we approve or donwt approve it doesnwt change the fact that here it
is
and anybody can have it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And I do appreciate
your suggestion, Commissioner Hancock, that we want to make sure
the
public, when they're voting, has as much information as possible,
but
I think Commissioner Norris' comment is right. They have the
information now. It doesn't require an approval from us, and --
and
by waiting it does allow us to fine-tune that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could comment shortly in on
that, I think, first of all, having the ordinance in print doesn't
doesn't assure the public that that is the form in which it will be
adopted because you just said there are parts that you're unhappy
with. So for the public to know what they're going to vote on, we
have to adopt an ordinance ahead of time.
And -- And perhaps more to the point, I think that
it's -- it's perfectly clear to people, when you take a position to
vote no on this tax because we don't know the details and then you
take the position against defining the details, that your motive is
clear. We owe it to the public to tell them the details so they
will
know on what to vote.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You are absolutely correct,
and this ordinance does not tell the details. How are we going to
pay
the annual maintenance cost? The answer was, I don't know. How
will
we pay for the lost ad valorem cost? I don't know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- was the answer.
The -- The exact point is that this doesn't fill in all
the details, and anyone who thinks it does is being misleading
because
it just simply doesn't.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, Commissioner, you said
yourself that you'll assume that it has to come out of the general
revenues unless corrected, and I think that's a reasonable
assumption.
I think that question has been answered.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're saying --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're -- we're arguing
the difference between a county initiative and a citizen
initiative.
Now, whether you agree or disagree with the makeup of the
committees
that have created this, ladies and gentlemen, what is here is their
best shot. This is it. This is the best they could come up with
to
implement $80 million or $75 million in tax money. And if the
voters
disagree with the best that that committee could do, we aren't
going
to see this back for a long time.
I would rather give the maximum amount of information so
that this question can be determined definitively and finally for
an
extended period of time than getting it caught in chaos and seeing
it
back in two years or four years and going through this entire
rigmarole again.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final thought because
it -- it -- it appears everyone has dug their heels in, and there
aren't -- isn't going to be a lot of swaying.
But I -- I think you're right, and that's my fear that I
started to say before we got the outcry from the public before, was
if
this fails -- and I -- I do see this particular ordinance is
terribly
flawed -- and if it fails, it does go away for a long time, and --
and
what I'd rather see is by not passing this, at least that leaves
the
door open for us to come back and look at more appropriate ways to
deal with green space, and I'm afraid this, because it's flawed, is
going to slam that door shut.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's -- Motion to call the
question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's do that. Let's do that.
We have a motion and a second to not adopt this
ordinance. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there a substitute motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to -- and I want this to
be very, very clear. I'm going to ask this board to neither
endorse
nor oppose the green space ballot question but merely to adopt the
ordinance pending voter approval so that the voters know how it is
the
tax dollars you're asking to be approved will be spent.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask the motionmaker if
he's including the change in dates that were --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that was mutually agreed
upon --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- suggested?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: There -- There are actually
four changes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you would please list those.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Okay. The first change was
dealing with the development of the master plan. The second change
was in the criteria eliminating the word "public" and putting in
the
word "donated." The third change was outlined by Mr. Barton
concerning the preferred advanced degree as opposed to being a
requirement and for that language to follow through all of the
different professional criteria. And then fourth, the change of
the
date where the budgeting is outlined by the county manager,
Mr. Dotrill.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those four changes are a part of
my motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm obviously going to support
the motion, but I didn't want to second it because I wish that this
board would take the leadership position of endorsing. As -- As I
think Mr. Agoston said, we -- we are leaders of this community, and
we
do owe the community leadership, and I wish that we were willing to
take a position as a majority of the board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can always make that
motion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't mind, I'll finish my
sentence.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a habit I'm picking up
from somebody to my left.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. If -- that -- that it
would be appropriate for this board to show the leadership to -- to
endorse this proposal. So that's my only reason for not seconding
it.
The only other thing I want to say is that blessedly the
invoice has not been paid. It's $76.51 to advertise the ordinance.
Here is my check. It will be taken care of today.
UNKNOWN VOICE: Where is the interest?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It hadn't been paid. The
interest would be owed to the Naples Daily News. I'm not going to
pay
them interest.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I didn't make the
motion to endorse is because this is a citizen initiative, but I
don't
think it's our job to endorse or oppose citizen initiatives.
That's
why the word "citizen" appears in the front. So --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We disagree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We do. And if it required
endorsement, I -- I probably wouldn't make the motion. I just want
to
put it out there for information.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I -- I would suggest
that at the various town hall meetings coming up, if you want to
endorse the program, that you do so.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly I haven't lost that
right essentially, and I have and will continue to.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I was --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a bit distracted there. I
oppose.
The -- You haven't lost the right to make that motion
now. You say you think we should do that. Go ahead and make a
motion
suggesting we do that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. I was aware of the
parliamentary procedures, but I can also count to three.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 96-461 RE PETITION V-96-21, BURT SAUNDERS OF WOODWARD,
PIRES, ANDERSON AND LOHBARDO, REPRESENTING THE DAVID POPE TRUST
REQUESTING A 3.5 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25
FOOT
REAR YARD SETBACK TO 21.5 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 342 SEABEE
AVENUE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 11, BLOCK Q, CONNERS VANDERBILT
BEACH
ESTATES, UNIT 2 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next item, 13(A)(1), Petition
V-96-21.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon. Good afternoon,
Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, the critical point here
is, whose fault is this?
MR. REISCHL: There was confusion on both sides, I
believe. The --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that mean the county is
partially at fault for this?
MR. REISCHL: At least partially is what the conclusion
that Mr. Cautero and I came to. Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, do you concur with that
assessment?
MR. CAUTERO: I don't necessarily believe -- Vince
Cautero for the record. I don't necessarily believe it's a matter
of
blaming. I really do believe it's a matter of confusion. Briefly
let
me explain what happened, if I may.
We have a practice which we have recently changed
because I believe the system is broken in that the customer service
agents try to document all the changes on building applications
when
they come in if they're incorrect. In this particular situation,
the
correct setbacks were applied to the building permit application by
the customer service agent. Customarily the agent circles on the
site
plan the incorrect setbacks. In this particular case, only one was
circled, and that's where the confusion lied. In our efforts to
try
to help applicants -- In our efforts to try to help applicants,
sometimes, shall I say, we go a little bit overboard. I don't
believe
that this was necessarily an error on anyone's part. I just
believe
that there was confusion because the documents were corrected but -
as I said, the site plan -- one of the incorrect setbacks was
circled.
That's something that the customer service agent shouldn't be
doing.
They did it. They didn't do all of them. So in our efforts to try
to
help, we may have made things worse.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But is the problem corrected?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They're not going to do this anymore?
MR. CAUTERO: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close
the public hearing, I'll be happy to make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second on the motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make the motion we
approve Petition V-96-21.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second for approval. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, the problem is
I'm getting paid by the word here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're in big trouble.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You -- You just pigged out on
all four.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Thank -- Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 96-462 RE PETITION V-96-18, HR. J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE
REPRESENTING HENRY AND VIOLET JOHNSON, REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 5
FEET
FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO 25 FEET FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN LELY BAREFOOT BEACH PUD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 13(A)(2), Petition V-96-18.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this another one of those
odd-shaped lots in Lely Barefoot Beach?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's an odd-shaped lot, and they can
only build a 90-foot-deep house.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We -- I think there's a history
on the board and particularly in Lely Barefoot Beach because of the
design of these lots of approving these pending no objections.
Were
there any objections?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There are no objections.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Goodlette, do you want to object
to this?
MR. GOODLETTE: Not -- Not this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's getting paid by the word
too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Getting paid by the word.
Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve Petition V-96-18.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Third, fourth.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 96-463 RE PETITION V-96-17, ANNE T. BROWN REQUESTING A
15
FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 60
FEET
AND 50 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT SETBACK TO 25 FEET FOR
PROPERTY
LOCATED IN SECTION 7, T495, R26E, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 13(A)(3), Petition V-96-17.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hit the brakes.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of the current
planning staff. Anne Brown is requesting a 15-foot variance from
the
required 75-foot front-yard setback to 60 feet and a 50-foot rear-
yard
variance to 25 feet for property located in Section 7 in Golden
Gate
Estates.
The petitioner is requesting variances to allow for
construction of a stilt house and a guest home. The subject site
is a
platted legal nonconforming lot of record but is only 230 feet
deep.
The petitioner states because of the unusual lot dimensions for an
estate lot, the typical 75-foot front and rear setbacks are
excessive.
In most cases and for nonconforming lots in general for a lot this
size, RSF-1 district with 50-foot setbacks would be applied, but
the
Golden Gate Estates does not allow for this break in the setbacks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the typical depth of these
lots? You said it's two thirty-three for this one?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, typically in Golden Gate Estates
they're six sixty feet deep, but this was split differently, and
because of taking of 1-75 when that came in, it left for an unusual
lot size.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gottcha.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- the -- The taking during the
construction of 1-75 --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, left --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- left some effect on this lot, is
what you're telling us?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This -- This is not an unusual size or
shape of dwelling?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's just that the lot has -- has been
constrained to the point where the original setbacks don't work as
well as they --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- they would -- Okay. Public
speakers on this one?
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Brown is here as your petitioner. I
have one other, I believe. Mr. Woodworth.
MS. BROWN: Yes. He's here.
MR. DORRILL: Is he in support?
MS. BROWN: He's in support.
MR. DORRILL: He's indicating he's in support also with
the petitioner.
MS. BROWN: And I have letters also from the neighbors
stating that they're in support also.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Is there any reason why we
should turn this down?
MS. BROWN: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any -- Is there any reason
why we should turn this down, why we should deny this application?
MS. BROWN: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Close the public hearing.
MR. BELLOWS: Can I make one --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: -- clarification?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, you may. Open the --
MR. BELLOWS: The planning commission did recommend
denial of the front but approved the rear. I just wanted to make
sure
the motion was made --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But they're -- they're looking
for 60 feet --
MS. BROWN: No. We're just --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- on the front '-
MS. BROWN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and 50 on the rear; right?
MS. BROWN: The front setback -- the reason that we're
needing that, it's just -- it's not for the principal building.
It's
just for the stairs. That's why we need the front.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For the stairs?
MS. BROWN: Hmm-hmm.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Yeah. I saw that. Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I would hope that we're going
to treat this similar to what we just said about in Lely Barefoot
Beach where the really fancy, expensive lots and homes, that if
nobody
objects, that we approve them. So I'm going to support it.
MS. BROWN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second for approval. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
MS. BROWN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Brown.
MS. BROWN: Thank you very much.
Item #13A4
PETITION V-96-20, ROBERT LOCKHART OF MCKEE & ASSOCIATES REQUESTING
A
3.3 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR
YARD
SETBACK TO 21.7 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 164 HERON AVENUE -
DENIED.
STAFF DIRECTED TO SEND LETTER TO DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL
REGULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 13(A)(4), Petition V-96-20.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Robert
Lockhart requesting a 3.3-foot after-the-fact variance from the
required 25-foot rear-yard setback to 21 feet.
The building envelope that was surveyed for the property
was staked by McKee & Associates based on architectural plans that
had
an incorrect dimension on the lot depth resulting in the 3.3-foot
encroachment.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this
petition on September 19, and they determined that special
conditions
exist due to the fact that the property abuts a 100-foot-wide canal
and that the 3.3-foot variance will not negatively impact the
neighboring properties.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Someone is going to have to
explain to me how you can stake a lot using surveying equipment and
not realize --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, as I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the architect scaled it
incorrectly.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. As I pointed out in the staff
executive summary, that they started with the front property line
site --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. And built onto the back.
MR. BELLOWS: -- and they went back, and they just used
the building dimensions to determine what the rear should be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And made no attempt to verify
from the rear property line --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or any corner point to the
rear what the back of the house should be and what the distance
Was.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is our stage of construction?
MR. BELLOWS: They applied for a spot survey for the tie
beam construction. So they got stopped at tie beam.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they've got vertical walls up,
and now they're putting tie beams in?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm getting a little tired of
letting shoddy work off the hook. You know, this is another
situation
where we're faced with telling a property owner that they have to
go
through about six months of a bunch of garbage because someone
didn't
stake the lot correctly. How many times have we seen this in the
last
two years?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who -- Who is it that -- what
company? I'd like to -- get to ask that often. What company
failed
to stake the lot?
MR. BELLOWS: McKee & Associates were the surveying and
engineering company.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a local firm, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, it is.
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Lockhart here is representing them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Lockhart, maybe you can help
answer my question.
MR. LOCKHART: Certainly. For the record, Robert
Lockhart with McKee & Associates. The beginning point of this
problem
was with the plot plan. The architect laid out a plot plan that
was
submitted for building permit, reviewed and approved and had the
dimension on the property of 135 that was incorrect. The property
was
a 120 foot in depth. It scaled 135. So the architect had drawn it
out of scale. It was reviewed and approved. The architect
prepared
the plot plan. We were given the plot plan with the setbacks
correctly
labeled on the plot plan, part of the approved permit, scaled
incorrectly.
The first thing we staked was the piles. This was not a
conventional building. The pile location was based on the same
plot
plan. After the piles were stake-driven, then we came out to put
fill
for the balance of the construction, the balance of the staking,
and
we did stake it from the front property corners. We didn't stake
it
from the rear. And with the piles in the ground, the concept of
shifting the pad had already precluded itself. So at the point of
staking out piles is where there was no cross-reference to a
setback,
cross-reference to the front property. It was on the site plan
that
was approved by the county based on the architect's dimensions.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The county's approval on the site
plan in no way is meant to either verify or not verify survey
information. We didn't go out and survey it.
MR. LOCKHART: Again, let me rephrase it. Maybe you
didn't understand. The plot plan that was approved as part of the
building permit denoted the front setbacks to be met. From the
front
setbacks, the piles were staked out, driven into the ground. From
there we came back, staked the corners of the building. It was
when
the slab survey identified that the rear of the building encroached
into the rear setbacks that we realized that the building was too
large. Then it was discovered that the plot plan -- the
architect's
floor plan with the front setbacks, with the rear setbacks exceeded
the building depth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Lockhart --
MR. LOCKHART: If there was a check on the building
depth setbacks plus the building depth versus the lot depth, we
would
have discovered that there was a 15-foot bust.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What -- What sounds troublesome
in what you just said is that you knew it as soon as you poured the
slab, but you'd gone all the way to tie beam and waited to get
caught?
MR. LOCKHART: No, ma'am. The county detected it when
it was submitted, the slab survey. Actually, the county accepted
it
first, and then after it was resubmitted, they disclosed --
discovered
it was in the -- encroaching into the rear setback, and that's when
a
red tag was placed on it. The next day the work stopped.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I thought you said you knew
it as soon as the piles were driven, and then it was too late to
shift
the --
MR. LOCKHART: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- foundation so --
MR. LOCKHART: No, ma'am. That's not what I stated. I
stated that the piles were driven based on the front setback being
met, based on the site plan. The front of the building met the
setbacks. We staked the piles based on the front setback.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I follow so far.
MR. LOCKHART: The slab was staked. The slab was
poured. Walls went up. The 21-day or the -- the location slab was
submitted to the county in the appropriate time, and that is when
it
was detected it was encroaching into the rear setback.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, when someone
requests an after-the-fact variance, there -- there's some criteria
they have to meet. There's a hardship. There's something. What -
What exactly is that hurdle they have to reach? Because I -- I'm
not
sure I've heard a reason. I heard an explanation, but I'm not sure
I've heard a reason yet, and I just want to make sure they
understand
what -- what the bar is.
MR. WEIGEL: If I may, I'll let Miss Student state it in
fewer words than I would.
MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student for the record, assistant
county attorney. Their criteria in the land code is found in your
executive summary packet, and that's the criteria for all
variances.
Whether they're after the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MS. STUDENT: -- fact or otherwise, they have to be met.
And you as the finder of fact need to take the competent,
substantial
evidence and apply that to the criteria in making your
determination.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I -- I don't want to --
I -- I know what's in the packet. I'm just asking so the
petitioner
here is right now right here on the record what -- what -- the
summary
of those criteria. And keep in mind, Mr. Weigel said in fewer
words
than he did.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. If you'll just bear with me for one
moment.
Okay. There are several and I -- since I don't know
them by heart really, it would be difficult to summarize them, but
I'll try and just very briefly read through them.
Are there special conditions and circumstances existing
which are peculiar to the location, size, characteristics of the
land,
structure, building involved?
Are there special conditions and circumstances which do
not result from the action of the applicant, such as preexisting
conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the
variance request?
Will the literal interpretation of the provisions of the
code work unnecessary hardship -- I think that's the one that you
were
alluding to -- or create practical difficulties on the applicant?
Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum one
necessary that makes possible the reasonable use of the property?
Will the petitioner get any special benefit as a result
of the conference of the variance?
And will it be in harmony with the general character of
the neighborhood and the intent and purpose of the LDC?
It will be consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
And are there any natural conditions or physically
induced ones that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the
regulations, such as natural preserves, etc.?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From what I've heard so far
in this public hearing, the only one that would be answered yes is,
Will the petitioner get any special -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Benefit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- situation? Yeah, benefit.
I haven't heard anything that covers those. That's what we're
required to make our decision on. So if -- if there is some
hardship
or if there's some situation that we're not aware of, now is the
time
to make it, or I don't have enough reason to vote in favor of the
variance.
MR. LOCKHART: The contractor has gone through the
review of the construction to date, and it's been estimated that
$75,000 would be expended to correct this problem.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct me if I'm wrong,
Mr. Weigel, it doesn't -- finances don't qualify as a hardship,
particularly self-imposed?
MR. WEIGEL: They can be considered, but they do not
qualify in and of themselves.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And since the owner didn't create
it themselves, this cost is not going to go borne by them. It's
going
to be borne by the people who made the mistake.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask a question, and I may need
to ask it of Mr. Cautero. Mr. Cautero, for the last year or two,
we've been seeing periodically these after-the-fact variances which
were caused by contractors of some sort, whether it's surveyors or
__
or whatever, and we've asked you to keep a log of -- of those
incidents that -- that are contractor-caused. Is HcKee &
Associates
on that log on multiple instances, or is this the first time or --
MR. CAUTERO: To my knowledge, it's the first. I -- I
haven't seen anything prior to this from them, but I'll double-
check,
but to my knowledge it's the first. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask something of
Mr. Bellows, if I may? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Fool that is shown on here,
was it set back for accessory structures correct to the actual
property line?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So somehow they got the Fool
right but didn't get the back of the house right?
MR. BELLOWS: The Fool setback is 10 feet --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. BELLOWS: -- for an accessory structure, and they
had room to fit that in. The house was a little larger --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that part of the original
plan that was submitted and approved?
MR. BELLOWS: The building permit for the house, I
believe, did show the pool.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So somehow the Fool was staked
appropriately and correctly 10 feet from the rear property line,
but
the back of the house was not.
MR. BELLOWS: I think what Mr. Lockhart is stating, that
the building permit submitted showed correct setbacks which he
based
his surveying on, but it was based on an incorrect lot depth shown
on
that plan submitted for the building permit that the county
accepted.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my point, Mr. Bellows.
If -- Mr. Lockhart, if you did your surveying from the
front to the back of the lot off the front setbacks, your pool
would
be inside the setback too. How did it miraculously end up exactly
10
feet from the property line? Someone must have checked that. I
mean,
we're not even talking 1/10 of a foot. It's exactly 10 feet from
the
rear property line.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The bottom line is, in
order -- I mean, we're required by law to not vote in favor of a
variance unless you can meet any or some of those criteria that
were
outlined by Ms. Student. And I'm going ask a final time because
that's -- You're here asking for a variance. You've got to cover
something in there, or we cannot -- by law, we can't support it.
MR. LOCKHART: Again, Commissioner Constantine, I'm not
sure what language you're looking for. There was an honest mistake
made. There was no deception that you're alluding to. There was no
check of the rear setback to make sure that it met -- the
foundation -- the -- The piles that were staked and the foundation
that subsequently followed -- The staking was done with the
understanding that the plot plan, the site plan that the architect
prepared and was approved as part of the county's building permit
had
all the setbacks met. There was no subsequent check to make sure
that
the setbacks were met. There was a plot plan that noted it was
acceptable, approved part of the permit approval.
Every time a pile location is asked to be staked out,
the surveyor is -- is requested by -- from the contract -- request
the
contractor to get information of to where that control is from, the
front property line, side property line. There is some control
given.
There's not a double-check on the zoning every time a -- a
contractor
asks for a construction layout. There's -- There's a reliance on
the
site plan, a plot plan. Why is it submitted part of the building
permit -- If it's depicting the overall building, the front
setbacks
and rear setbacks, and it's not drawn to scale, what reliance is
there
in it? Why have it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What lacks is the hiring of a
professional surveyor to make sure your site is staked properly,
sir.
That wasn't done.
MR. LOCKHART: The -- The lot was surveyed properly. It
was submitted to the architect. It was a proper survey that
depicted
the building dimensions. The architect drew an out-of-scale
drawing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that.
MR. LOCKHART: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a check and balance
somewhere. Just because an architect draws it doesn't mean it has
to
get built that way. Someone along the way has to figure this out.
You figured it out on the pool but not on the house.
MR. LOCKHART: I don't understand what you're referring
to on the pool, sir. I am not a surveyor. I'm representing the
company, and the pool was an integral part of the pile foundation
and
the initial stakeout. There was no subsequent check in fitting the
pool in there. So I'm -- I'm not sure what you're alluding to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It makes my case even stronger.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to ask the wholly
irrelevant question, What will happen if we deny this variance?
They
have to take the house down?
MR. BELLOWS: They have to do whatever measures to make
it conforming.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I'm asking.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What does that mean?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's up to them.
MR. BELLOWS: There may be -- If it's great enough where
they can make it -- cut it, they'd have to remove the house.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you -- do -- Do you have any
idea, Mr. Cautero?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. I know it's highly
irrelevant.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What difference does it make?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It seems --
MR. CAUTERO: Well -- Vince Cautero. As Mr. Bellows
alluded to, if they -- if they cannot make some -- if they can't
retrofit it, they're going to have to tear it down and build it
over
again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is in a neighborhood
where new construction is occurring at a much higher elevation than
the stuff built in the '60s and '70s. So every foot you go closer
to
the water, you're not just going a foot closer to the water. The
finished floor elevation is higher. So that 3 1/2 feet is
occurring
at an elevation potentially several feet above the floor elevation
of
the home next to them.
UNKNOWN VOICE: Excuse me, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're going to have to either be
registered to speak, sir, and be recognized at the microphone. You
can't do it from the audience.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Speak to Mr. Weigel. He'll tell
you how.
UNKNOWN VOICE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, taking the house
down is not part of this. We are required by law to answer under
these questions. Mr. Lockhart, you said you don't understand what
I'm
asking for. I had Hiss Student read it. I can read it to you
again.
Are there special conditions and circumstances existing
which are peculiar -- peculiar to the location, size, and
characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved? No.
Are there special conditions and circumstances which do
not result from the action of the applicant, such as preexisting
conditions? No.
Will literal interpretation of the provisions of this
code work unnecessary and undue hardship? Not that wasn't caused
by
someone in the project.
I mean, it's right here and -- and when you file --
MR. LOCKHART: I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for this variance or
whomever did --
MR. LOCKHART: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- this was all available to
you, and you had to answer these questions and -- and --
MR. LOCKHART: I just -- Again, I believe that there was
some involvement with the county in this process of the review of
the
building permit. The site plan that was with it, the requirements
that go behind the preparation of the site plan, the level of a
professional degree or whatever registration necessary for a site
plan
preparation sounds to me like it should equal that of a layout, a
surveyor or something similar, that maybe being prepared by an
architect wasn't appropriate. Maybe there should be some change in
the policies of the county on who is qualified to prepare site
plans,
what review of the site plan is done internally.
It's a simple suggestion, but a mathematical addition of
building depth, front setback, the rear setback, and then checking
the
lot depth would have detected this, and it wouldn't fit. You're
trying to put too much into the lot depth.
It isn't part of the standard procedure. It isn't part
of a county's checklist or code. It would be a great suggestion
that
it be added as a -- It would at least caught this project, this
layout, this after-the-fact variance, and it's a simple
mathematical,
you know, calculation that anyone in the building permit review
process could have done. So in that regard, if there was a
changing
of the process, this would have been detected, a minor involvement
of
the county.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's let Mr. Cautero respond to that.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero again. I don't think this
is exactly similar to the situation that we had a few moments ago
with
the -- with the vat -- the after-the-fact variance. As Mr. Bellows
indicated, the setbacks were correctly shown on that drawing;
however,
the building was not to scale. I'm very concer --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. And I need a clarification
on that point.
MR. CAUTERO: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sorry to interrupt you --
MR. CAUTERO: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- but -- but why was it not to scale?
Who -- Who drew it not to scale?
MR. CAUTERO: The architect, to my understanding, and
I'm very concerned if we start getting into architects' works who
are
professionals licensed by the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I am too.
MR. CAUTERO: If the setbacks weren't correct, I'd be
very concerned about staff's involvement. I'm not -- My intent is
not
to point fingers, but it's merely to state that once we saw the --
the
plan with the correct setbacks, I believe our function is complete,
and then it becomes a function of the architect and the contractor.
The reason we require the ten-day spot survey after the
permit is to assure that the setbacks are met. That's the check
and
the balance.
And one final comment. The -- The person who pulls the
permit or the owner is proceeding at their own risk in that ten-day
period.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was going to be my point. I was
going to make that point. During that ten-day period, before the
spot
survey is completed --
MR. CAUTERO: They're proceeding at their own risk
because if there's a problem --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They're proceeding at their own risk
if they proceed at all. Yeah. Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: -- we end up here.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman --
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you do have one speaker when
the board is finished with their questions.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have one more --
one more question, and -- and I -- I need a clarification on this.
If -- If the drawings were not done to scale and you staked out the
lot from the front back, then help me understand why this rear wall
is
3 and a -- 3.3 feet into the setback and the pool is not. It seems
to
me the pool would be 3.3 feet into the setback as well.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Assuming it was all staked at the
same time and the same method was used for both sides of the house.
It's unfortunate you're not the surveyor on the project, sir.
MR. LOCKHART: The contractor may be able to assist in
that question, the exact procedure for layout and the exact
iterative
construction process.
MR. BROWN: For the record I'm Homer Brown of HLB
Development, the builder building the Schultzes' home. Had the --
Had
the plot plan, the architect put on the piece of paper for the plot
plan, the lot itself had been correct, the -- the pool would have
been
short of the back setback line of 10 feet. When we moved -- when -
_
when that was -- When he drew the house, it was not the part of the
house that was in front of the Fool but that on the side of the
pool
that extended into the back set line. The Fool would have been
short
of the back set line if -- if it were drawn properly.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it wasn't drawn properly.
That's -- That's the question.
MR. BROWN: It was not drawn properly.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Bellows, on the original
site plan -- MR. BROWN: I mean, we -- you learn a lot of things when
you go through a process like this, by the way.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. --
MR. BROWN: Let me assure you that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Bellows, on the original
site plan, is the rear of the cage -- I guess that's what that is -
is that 13 -- is that shown as 13.3 feet from the property line?
MR. BELLOWS: On the original building permit?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The -- They were proposing the
required setback to be 36 feet, but when they came out, it actually
ended up 21 feet. They were requiring the Fool setback --
proposing
the Fool setback to be 25 feet. What it ended up was 10 feet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So originally the pool
did show a greater setback than what --
MR. BELLOWS: That's what their --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- it had come out with?
MR. BELLOWS: -- plans had indicated. Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That explains that 10-foot
question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, it -- it does, but it also means
that the entire house is much bigger than what it was supposed to
be
because -- because of the scale difference.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just suggest we -- I
mean, we're -- we're getting off scale, off -- off topic here.
Either
they can -- they can answer the question and request a variance
with
something that meets our criteria or they can't. And -- And if you
can, please do, and if not, we don't need to ask a bunch of other
questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a public speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, you do. This is Ms. Schultz whom,
I'm sure, was told she'd be in her house by Christmas.
MS. SCHULTZ: Well, I'm Terri Schultz. I'm one of the
builders. And I think a couple of the questions that have come up
one is the hardship issue. It's not just financial. It's time-
wise.
There would be a lot of time involved. There would be a lot of
legal
trouble involved obviously.
Another one was -- It sounds to me like you've aFFroved
a lot of these, and all of a sudden we're the ones that stop it
all.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
MS. SCHULTZ: And that doesn't -- Well, that was a
comment that you made, so I was just kind of --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
MS. SCHULTZ: -- questioning it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have not approved variances.
I was talking about a building change --
MS. SCHULTZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in that neighborhood, and the
variance compounds that.
MS. SCHULTZ: All right. Okay. And then the other
thing you have stated was that it would be a problem for people's
sight line. Well, first of all, the one person involved we've
spoken
to, he has no problem. And second of all, we are less of a problem
that way than these people who have 14-foot-high pools that are
allowed 10 feet from the back line. We're much further back, and
we
certainly aren't a 14-foot-high pool which a person two houses down
has. Now, I feel that's, as far as bothering people, a whole lot
worse. So when you mentioned, does it cause a problem, it doesn't
cause a problem to people in the neighborhood. We've spoken to all
of
them. It causes less of a sight line problem to our neighbor than
the
people two houses down will have with that pool. And as far as,
you
know, a problem for us, it's obviously huge. So I just wanted to
go
on record that way, and it was --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you --
MS. SCHULTZ: -- a completely honest mistake.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you new to Collier County, or
have you lived here?
MS. SCHULTZ: We've lived here off and on for a short
time, but we're -- we were planning to move here permanently.
So it being an honest mistake, certainly not intended,
and if you were to look at that plan, you'd see that that's all it
is.
It's just an L shape that sticks into this, not the whole house by
any
means.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I mentioned, unfortunately you
end up being the person that's penalized because of some shoddy
work
on the part of the architect.
MS. SCHULTZ: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately for you and for the
applicant -- I happen to know a little bit about site planning.
It's
what I did as a career. And I know full well that you look at the
survey and the scale. It's a ruler. I mean, you know, 120 --
MS. SCHULTZ: That was my comment when I heard about the
problem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and 135 are not even close.
MS. SCHULTZ: Right. That was my comment when I heard
about the problem and --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, so the architect's
on -- on the hook for the money if they made that mistake, is my
opinion, unlegal.
MS. SCHULTZ: They may be but not for the years of
trouble it's going to cost.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it's --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I --
MS. SCHULTZ: And it will be years, I'm sure.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand you're -- you're kind of
caught in the middle of this but --
MS. SCHULTZ: Yep.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- And I'm going to take the
risk of giving you some legal advice from the dais, and that is,
you
might want to withdraw and get the advice of an attorney before you
let us vote on it if it looks like it's going to get turned down,
and
I would be happy to move --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think they're allowed to
withdraw at this point.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'd be happy to move to
continue it to give you time to get some legal advice because if it
gets turned down -- I think that there are arguments that might
could
be made, but it's not my place to make them for you on whether or
not
you comply with the criteria. I think the lawyer might could do
that
for you so --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's -- Well, you're right;
it's not your place. I mean, they have --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- their responsibility to
come forward and make their argument, and then we can't tinker with
the process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, but they're not lawyers, and
they don't know.
MS. SCHULTZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I -- I'm going to move to
continue the item for a month.
MS. SCHULTZ: If we're turned down, it's a permanent
thing then?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
MS. SCHULTZ: Not having ever been through --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MS. SCHULTZ: -- a process like this obviously.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
MR. DORRILL: We have no other speakers, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move to continue for four
weeks.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second that, only because I
think the question on the pool setback was finally answered.
MS. SCHULTZ: That would have more than met it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The public hearing is closed, ma'am.
MS. SCHULTZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
We have a motion to continue for a one-month period?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there a substitute motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm afraid as much as I'm -- I'm
sorry to do this to the homeowners, that we're going to have to
move -- I feel compelled to move denial of their petition based on
the
fact that we have to hold people that do work in this county to
some
standard, and -- and someone has blatantly ignored that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second the
motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have motion and a second to deny.
Any further comment?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion carries 3 to 2.
Next item is 13(A)(5), Petition SV-96-3.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Chahram Badamtchian from planning services. This variance is for a
sign for Pet Supermarket on the East Trail.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. If I may interrupt
real quickly --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't -- Contractors'
License -- Licensing doesn't affect architects, does it?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. That's the bureau.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: State.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Business and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's the state
Department of Professional Regulation or whatever it is called now?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: DBPR.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: DBPR. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have sent letters before,
though, to the BBPR -- DBPR when we've had a situation like this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't think we talked about
who was the bad architect in that last petition. Does anybody
know?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's in the petition. Just --
Would the board authorize staff to send a letter to the Department
of
Professional Regulation indicating this mistake and who made it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 96-464 RE PETITION SV-96-3, THOMAS E. KILLEN
REPRESENTING
PET SUPERMARKET, INC., REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 10 FEET FROM THE
REQUIRED 150 FOOT ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR A POLE SIGN TO 140
FEET
AND A VARIANCE OF 15 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK
ESTABLISHED FOR POLE SIGNS TO 0 FEET FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2416
EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Badamtchian --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- please go forward.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. This site was vacant for over
six months, and it contained one pole sign, nonconforming pole sign
right on the property line which was being used by an adjoining
neighbor who owns the restaurant there, Rancho's [sic] restaurant.
And one thing that related to the building, they applied for a sign
permit, and we denied, and we told them that the sign must be
removed
since it was nonconforming and vacant for more than six months.
At that point they applied for a sign variance. They
have 140 foot road frontage, and the code requires 150 which staff
recommended denial. They went to the planning commission. The
planning commission -- they approved a different version of it
saying
that those two sides, Pet Supermarket and Rancho's restaurant,
should
be able to share one sign, and basically they had a drawing of the
sign. The planning commission said that they have to comply with
the
drawing and add some landscaping.
This was approved 5 to 2 by the planning commission;
however, there's nothing in our code to allow this type of
variances.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me point out that in the
past probably year, I think, maybe even more recently than that, we
have denied two of these applications along that stretch of road
within probably a mile of this particular location, maybe a mile
and a
half. Did I understand you to say that -- that if we deny this
variance completely, then the sign has to come down and be removed?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. The sign has to come down.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- The sign is there and is
beneficial for those -- or has been there for many, many years.
It's
a little different situation than the -- the two that we -- we
declined because there was no sign. This is an existing sign. If
these two properties make an agreement and bundle the two
properties
together to get the required frontage, can we --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's your decision. I believe they
don't want to combine those two properties together.
CHAI~ NORRIS: Just an agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- Can I just weigh in on
this, that I -- I think that's exactly the opposite of what we
want.
I can't wait until we can finally bring that part -- You talk about
degrading east Naples. We desperately need to do something about
the
signs that violate code and as they -- As we have these
opportunities
for nonconforming signs to come down so that we can start having a
roadway over there that's -- you know, that's up to current code,
we
don't need to lose those opportunities. I -- I would very much
like
to see the sign that's there come down and hope -- as I've talked
to
Mr. Cautero about, that -- that I hear that 50 percent of the signs
out there are probably illegal signs, and to the extent we can do
Some
code enforcement, I wish we would.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I suggest we hear from
the petitioner before making a final decision on that?
MR. KILLEN: Good afternoon. Tom Killen. I'm an
architect here in Naples. I'm representing the Pet Supermarket and
have with me Mr. Steve Feinberg who is the general manager, and in
that little package I gave you is -- is a letter that he's
constructed
an agreement with the pro -- the adjacent property owner.
What we have on the front is the existing building that
they bought approximately a year ago and at the cost of about
$200,000
where you have the building and to what you see at the bottom.
At the time they purchased the building, they were told
that this pylon sign which is on their property went with the
property
and -- and all their locations need pylon signs. That's just their
format for purchasing. So they bought it under the understanding
that
they had a fine pylon sign.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They were told by whom?
MR. KILLEN: They were told by the real estate people.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. KILLEN: Real estate agent.
When we finished the building, they went in for a permit
to rehab the sign, and they were told they can't have a permit to
rehab the sign and, furthermore, that the sign would be taken down.
Well, this affects two people. It affects Pet Supermarket, and it
affects Mr. Campos next door who has the Pancho's restaurant. He's
been in business there several years, has a good reputation in the
neighborhood, and relies heavily on a pylon sign. Pet Supermarket
also has been here in town for about seven years. They employ in
excess of 20 people in Naples. They're good Naples businesses and
well respected by the public.
That being the case, what we're trying to do is work out
a way to take this sign, replace it with a sign that is in
compliance
with the new codes, and further than that, to take the sign
ordinance
that allows 150 feet of sign, reduce that to 100 foot of sign
maximum,
take the sign that's now 19 feet high, reduce it to a maximum of 17
and then add in excess of 200 square feet of landscaping at the
point
that the sign exists now and move the sign back from front -- front
property line back 15 feet, bring it into compliance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me ask you an important
question. If that would bring it into compliance, why would they
need
a variance, Mr. Badamtchian?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have 140 foot of road frontage,
and the code requires 150.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you -- you can't bring it
into -- you -- You're not proposing to bring it into compliance.
MR. KILLEN: Well, we're trying to bring the sign into
compliance even though our property is not into compliance. We're
trying to work a shared relationship between two properties that
could
be done legally and -- otherwise, I imagine it would take you a
long
way around with easements and land swaps and trades and so forth.
We're just trying to do a thing where everyone wins. The county
wins
with a new, nicer sign that's in compliance with the setbacks and
fits
in with -- with what's constructed out there. It's new and fresh.
And both -- both the parties win by having their -- their sign not
taken away from them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the public loses because we
don't ever get our -- that stretch of the East Trail improved up to
current standards.
MR. KILLEN: Well, that particular stretch there are
only three signs on the entire block, and that's this drawing up
here.
This is the entire block, Spruce Street to Pine Street. There's
one
sign, a large Valvoline sign at the corner here, the existing sign
here, and a Tiki Hotel sign at the end. The minimum distance is
161
feet. The ordinance calls for 150 feet. So at that aspect -- that
aspect we -- we exceed the ordinance's intent at 150 feet minimum
between signs at 161 and 430 to the other sign.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I -- I
appreciate what you're trying to do here, and we're trying to do
our
architectural standards. We're trying to improve looks all over.
I
just have a little concern that a proprietor of Pancho's restaurant
has had this sign here for -- how long? -- ten years? Five years?
Eight years? -- a long time and -- a while, and -- and I just hate
to
have him -- him penalized because somebody else came in and wanted
to
do an addition to the sign. And if there's an opportunity to
improve
that, to take it back and to -- and maybe you can describe -- I see
grass and stuff up there. I know drawings don't always mean
anything.
But if -- if there's some sort of greenscaping going with that --
MR. KILLEN: This is the sign company's interpretation
of the sketch that I gave to the planning commission. I'm not a
sign
expert. I have to apologize for that.
Okay. The idea here is -- is to -- with an angle or a
slope of some -- some type shape, to keep the sign more of a low
profile than -- than this overall dimension needs to be at least 6
feet to the bottom so you clear the cars in front of it. There
will
be a planter in the sign plus we're having a 200-foot planter
between
the sign and the -- and the sidewalk. The finish here is intended
to
be assimilated stucco which fits into the building, same color
scheme.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: How close does this property come
to meeting landscape and parking and other codes?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically there is no landscaping.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, you've got -- it's awful.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I mean -- Yeah. I mean,
you look at before and after.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They've done a wonderful job.
They've done a beautiful job of improving the facade of the
building,
but we have to also be concerned about the streetscape and -- If
you
want to bring it up to landscape code, then maybe I can support
your
sign.
MR. KILLEN: We -- We did add a 100-foot planter -- 100
square feet of planter from the building.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What -- What would code require?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For landscaping?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically 10 percent of the lot area,
more or less.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could you tell us what that would
be about?
MR. KILLEN: I didn't --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ten percent of the lot area
should be green.
MR. KILLEN: It wouldn't be less than 10 percent.
The -- The problem with the sites is the old -- the old parking
requirements, they're very tight on parking. So to start removing
blacktop, then you reduce the cars.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Hay -- Hay I interject something? For
one thing, for existing sites the code says they have to landscape
it
to the greatest extent possible. So it's 10 percent --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much space is there from
the store front to the -- to the right-of-way, to the sidewalk?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not much.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not much.
MR. KILLEN: About 50 feet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that. I'm -- I'm -- I'm
looking here, and it looks like 25 feet or less.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not 50 feet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Less than that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From the sidewalk, the width of
your handicap parking space plus your adjacent 5 foot should be 15
feet. It looks like there's about 20 feet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And -- and I'm --
MR. KILLEN: From -- From the sidewalk? Probably from
the sidewalk. The property line is out at the street.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just thinking, I -- I
don't know where you're going to put green space and still meet
your
parking requirements and so on.
The bottom line is -- is I know we're trying to do a lot
with the signs and all, but if there's an existing sign there and
it
has been there for 10 years or 20 years, I'm not sure I want to
take
that away from -- from an existing business. They've -- They've
been
continuous in business. I don't think they should be penalized.
The -- If we can get it improved, however, take 15 feet
off, have it -- have all of that greenscaped around the sign,
that's
an improvement.
MR. KILLEN: That's the softest parking pattern -- we
could -- We could landscape down that -- that east property line.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I -- Can I propose something
that kind -- might meet most of what everyone's asking for? Based
your drawing here, Pancho's sign needs to be 3 feet in vertical
height. The Pet Supermarket sign needs to be somewhere between 4
1/2
and 7 1/2 feet in vertical height --
MR. KILLEN: Something like that. Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and you need 6 feet to clear
the cars.
MR. KILLEN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So your total height
needed, if we bring that -- that 7 1/2 down, say, a foot and a half
to
about 6, it's going to reduce the peak on that sign, but it still
allows it to have some contour. We can have 15 feet. You still
have
6 foot of clearance, 3 foot for Pancho's, and 6 feet for the Pet
Supermarket sign.
MR. KILLEN: If you -- If you'd like a 15-foot maximum,
we'd be happy to accommodate that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not all. That -- You're
also going to move it back -- what is it? -- 15 feet?
MR. KILLEN: Yes, sir.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: A planter underneath it?
MR. KILLEN: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you -- you and I have
discussed this --
MR. KILLEN: Planter in front.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the triangular planter in
front.
MR. KILLEN: It's -- It's about two hundred -- 220
square feet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. He takes up all that
unnecessary asphalt that's not used for parking there and puts
planting in front of it. The one other thing --
MR. KILLEN: Nice planting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nice.
MR. KILLEN: Nice.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Beautiful planting.
The one thing we didn't talk about that occurred to me
as Commissioner Hac'Kie was talking about this -- I mean, you have
to
admit, as you drive down that street, when it's sidewalk to front
of
store and it's all pavement and it's not used, there's just no need
for that. There's a section in front of your store as you're
facing
on the right-hand side there that's not a driveway and not a
parking
area. I think the -- the community would benefit by having that
area
planted.
MR. KILLEN: We could do that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KILLEN: That -- That area is used strictly for
handicapped parking space and then loading. It's -- It's just a
place
where they can back up and -- and load if -- if they so require.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But will you commit that all
areas not needed -- What?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Hay I interject something? If you
wish to approve this variance, I recommend that you approve it as a
sign variance, not combining those two frontages, because we may
end
up having one pole sign every 150 feet on both sides of the road if
you approve it by combining those two.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't think we want to
make a policy of combining the two properties because that's in
direct
conflict with our code. If we want to amend our code down the
road,
we can do it. It would just simply be a sign variance.
But what I'm trying to extract is a little more
landscaping on the front of the building there where unnecessary
pavement now sits that is not used for loading, handicap, or
turning
movement. Will you commit to doing that?
MR. KILLEN: Yes. On the west side especially it abuts
that grass area -- excuse me --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm ready to make a motion.
MR. KILLEN: -- abuts the grass area that exists there
now.
CONNISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. It is. It's -- is it --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The east side.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The west side or the east side?
MR. KILLEN: It would be --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. It -- it --
MR. KILLEN: It would be the west side.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: East side.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It -- It's the west because the
handicap is on the east over in front of the Pet Supermarket.
MR. KILLEN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: West side of the parking lot or
building?
MR. DORRILL: Can I -- Can I just explain to you what
one of the problems that you're apt to see within a month just
because
I saw it on a staff report? Our friends with Toys R Us are going
to
appeal an administrative decision from the planning director
because
aside from the outparcel configuration within the original PUD for
that shopping center, they have acquired what I will call an
irregular
or about a 5-foot easement that runs diagonally from their building
all the way back to the southwest to connect with Pine Ridge Road,
and
they're going to try and come in here and tell you that they're
entitled to a pole sign because their lease instrument takes into
account this little 5-foot imaginary path that runs into -- to Pine
Ridge Road.
And so if we're going to sit here and talk about
variances, you either need the help of Ms. Student or Mr. Weigel
for
the very reason that Mr. Badamtchian mentioned, was these people
are
real shrewd and slick when it comes to playing these games with
your
Land Development Code, and -- and we're going to have all kinds of
these things in here because everybody wants a big pole sign
fronting
an arterial road.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think a motion can be crafted
to be specific enough to this site to address --
MR. DORRILL: That was in -- in process and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- what has been discussed.
MR. DORRILL: -- you're going to see it in a couple of
weeks, and so I just want you to be careful.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We certainly wouldn't want to
prejudge that item, but that's -- that's very interesting.
Do we have some public speakers?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any more public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
make --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make a motion that
we approve the sign variance, Petition V --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 96-3.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- 96 -- I'm sorry 96-3?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 96-3.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- 96-3 with the following
stipulations: The total height of the sign be limited to 15 feet
with
a clearance, minimum ground -- or a ground clearance of -- of 6
feet;
that the Pancho's sign be included since that's going to be
critical
to why we're doing this; that the planter of approximately 200
square
feet between the sidewalk and the new location of the sign be
installed; that the planter underneath to the sign be installed;
and
that the pavement between the -- the store and the sidewalk that is
not specifically dedicated to turning movements, loading zones, or
handicapped spaces be removed and replaced with planted material.
The purpose or the reason for this variance is that the
long-time establishment of Pancho's restaurant would be severely
adversely affected by the removal of any sign here and that the
proposed increase in distance from the roadway of 15 feet brings
the
sign closer to compliance with other areas throughout the county in
addition to the reduced height and reduced surface areas.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you repeat the motion, please?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to second the motion,
and I -- I -- I'd like to add, I also think the planter,
particularly
considering how large it is and the fact it's going to have nice
plantings, will be beneficial to the area. That -- That whole
stretch
there is nothing but concrete and pavement, and -- and that little
break with a little bit of green will be attractive.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unlike many pole sign requests,
we can actually make the place look better with this. How is that?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you -- A potential problem is that
one property owner owns the sign. You didn't -- You didn't specify
any size limitations for the adjoining property owner's portion of
the
sign. Should they have one-third of the sign? What is it that
you're
intending? Because I can foresee a legal problem here at some
point
in time should the adjoining property owner --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- change, for example, or --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let me clarify my motion,
and it's based on the drawing that Mr. Killen has provided this
board
that the adjoining property owner which is currently Pancho's,
their
sign be limited to 3 feet by 8 feet and that the Pet Supermarket
sign
be limited to 6 feet by 8 feet in total area, that be an element of
the variance.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second amends.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that -- Does that work out right?
Does that work out right?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The maximum must not exceed 100.
That's 48 for this and 24 --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 72.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That works out --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- correctly?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that acceptable?
MR. KILLEN: And we -- And we have an agreement attached
in here also from Pet Supermarket that we can make part of the
proposal.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And you accept the stipulations
that were put on? You accept the --
MR. KILLEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- stipulations that were put on?
MR. KILLEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Weigel
has something he's trying to say.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- I just was handed presumably, I
guess, a copy of the agreement, but I thought that if the
representative of Pancho's are here and their property is affected,
that it might be appropriate if they could on the record affirm the
action that's being taken today.
MR. KILLEN: Mr. Campos is here, or he was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we ask the representative --
MR. KILLEN: Oh, yeah. He's here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of Pancho's '-
MR. KILLEN: Mr. Campos.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reopen the public hearing then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want to come on up, sir.
The -- The question simply is, from what you've heard today,
limiting
the size and location of this sign, you as a representative of
Pancho's and the property owner, are you agreeing --
MR. CAMPOS: Yeah. My name is -- My name is Colon
Campos. I'm the owner of Pancho's restaurant. Yeah, that sounds
very, very reasonable and -- but the only thing I didn't like it is
a
comment that somebody on the board made about that they have to
start
taking signs down because the looks of the city, but you have to
understand one thing. You have to understand the signs mean
business,
and business mean family, and sometime we have to support the kids
we
have to put through college. We have to put -- We have to send my
little girl to ballet classes.
So before you do anything or say anything, please think
about what all those signs mean to families, and thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Close -- Reclose the
public hearing.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #14A
DISCUSSION REGARDING A DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT PROBLEM CONCERN
SFWMD
- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK TO BE ON AN AD-HOC COMHITTEE TO ADDRESS THE
FIVE
COUNTY FLOODING PROBLEMS UNTIL A DISTRICT 5 COMHISSIONERS IS
ELECTED
That concludes our agenda for the day. Commissioner
Matthews, do you have anything else?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. Huh-uh. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Commissioner John Manning
of Lee County -- I saw him at the Florida Association of Counties'
meeting this past week. He is forming a five-county coalition to
address storm water management problems that are crossing county
lines
and to -- and his concern is that what Commissioner Matthews had
originally talked about pursuing in a -- a separate district is a
minimum of five years in the making and more likely ten years. It
wouldn't provide a realistic solution in the short term. And he's
asking a member of this commission to join him as a representative
of
Collier on that.
I suggested that the winner of the District 5 race may
be the most appropriate because I believe the majority of those
properties, the majority of the properties affected were in
District 5
but in the meantime that I would -- would fill that slot unless the
board would like to -- to handle it otherwise.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which slot is that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just a -- a -- kind of an
ad hoc committee to address the five-county flooding difficulties
with
the South Florida Water Management District.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a wonderful
suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's all.
Item #14B
DISCUSSION REGARDING CATEGORY B TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS - COUNTY
MANAGER TO LOOK INTO HAVING AN AUDIT PERFORMED ON THESE FUNDS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all?
I have a couple of -- of things relating to the tourist
development tax. First of all, I want to commend Miss --
Commissioner
Mac'Kie for having audit of an event to make sure that everything
was
done properly. That -- That's what we should be doing. I think to
audit these events and make sure that the public's dollars are
expended the way they are promised is a good idea, but I'm not sure
why we're singling out one particular event. I think we should --
we
should check them all, all the category C events, but more -- most
appropriately I think we should audit category B. We do not audit
category B. We've never audited category B. We write the check,
and
we have no idea what happens to the money after that, and I don't
think that's proper stewardship of the county's public tax dollars.
So I would like to ask the board to direct the staff to
audit category B for 1995, '96 fiscal year, at least those two
years,
and see what's happening.
And I think the audit will do a couple of things. It
will -- It will give us the comfort that we are appropriately
stewarding our public tax dollars, but it will also perhaps ask the
lingering -- or answer the lingering questions that have been out
there for a while, that are excessive fees being taken out of that
category B money, and is there some conflict of interests involved
in
the category B expenditures. I think an audit will answer all of
those questions. So if there's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a great idea.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I sit on the marketing committee
for -- for that group now. I just recently started doing that, and
my
impression is that they would welcome that because they want
everyone
to know that -- how their dollars are being spent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine, and I think they should
do it. Previous to now we'd just write the check, and we never
know
from there. So I think an audit is certainly in order.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may require a budget amendment
to do that later because it's going to take some staff time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine. Mr. Dorrill, your --
your direction is to have that done.
MR. DORRILL: I've made that note. I'll probably talk
to the clerk's internal auditor first and see whether they're
available to do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's just be sure that we're
applying the same process to all the funds.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right. That's right. Instead
of picking on one.
Item #14C
DISCUSSION ON TOURIST TAX DOLLARS AND MARKETING APPROACH -
DISCUSSED
Now, the other thing is that the -- the county
commission has gotten a little bit of heat for the expenditure of
category C funds for the golf tournament, and I have developed a
few
figures here, and it is the tourist tax collections over the last
fiscal year.
What these figures actually show is that from the
ninety -- this is '96 fiscal -- starting in October going through -
through February that the tourist tax collections were down -- were
headed down -- were down and headed down significantly by a matter
of
$150,000 over the year before, and that is in collections.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's up until February of this
year?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's February of this year.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And when did the 3 cents go into
effect?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- That comes in January the 1st,
but that's been eliminated.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's taken out so --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You've backed it out?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's backed out so that you're
comparing 2 cents to 2 cents as you should.
The -- After the February golf tournament, up until
today, the tourist tax collections have gone way up. As a matter
of
fact, it completely reversed the trend in the season and has come
up
by a dollar amount of $154,000 incrementally over '95.
If you just go shoulder season only, May through
September, it's up $98,000 over those summer months. Now,
recognizing
that at 2 percent, it takes $50 of income to a hotel to make $1 of
tourist tax revenue. That translates out to $4,900,000 and change
extra income this summer over last summer to the hoteliers, or at
$100
average room night in the summer, 49,194 room nights.
Now, I'm not going to sit up here and say that the golf
tournament brought in 49,194 room nights. That would be an absurd
statement for me to make. But it would be equally as absurd to say
that -- that the $7 million worth of audited impact that the
tournament itself had and the 13,900 30-second TV spots that we
have
audited statements for in the budget office had no effect. I mean,
that's an equally absurd statement.
The facts are that the tourist tax money collections
were headed down until through February. After that they're way
up.
Now, whether you think the golf tournament had any effect on it or
not
is up to you, but there's the figures, and there's the facts.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if you watched the
Las Vegas Invitational this weekend. I watched one day of it, and
the
Convention and Visitors' Bureau sponsors a part of that, and they
had
bits in the tournament coverage. And I think if we're going to be
smart about this, if the -- if the TDC funds are going to be
involved
at all, we should be buying the coverage during the tournament
instead
of the nationwide promotion thing to achieve the same result.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's exactly what we did in this
last year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Exactly what we did.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you know, we'll -- we'll look
forward to a different marketing approach, but I -- I think that's
__
those are worthwhile numbers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now, next.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing for me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nothing?
Mr. Dotrill?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have nothing, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks for asking.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
MR. DORRILL: One quick clarification. The ordinance
that was approved today on the green tax, I thought that I heard
then
but I need to have it clarified --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Which ordinance
was that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The green space.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Saunders tax. Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Did it -- Did it include the
modifications that I expressed concern about, about needing to have
independent appraisals done and the fact that it does not appear to
me
to be able to accomplish that within two days, or is that something
that we need to work out?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding is it was
just up or down the way it was given to us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There were four items that were
stated as amendments to that time. Were you not in the room when
those --
MR. DORRILL: I was, and I thought that one of the
conditions may have been in comments made by the county manager,
and
we'll listen to the tape if we need to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please do but I -- you know, I
didn't include it specifically.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think that's what -- what
Representative Saunders said, is incorporating comments made by
you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you'd better check the
record.
MR. DORRILL: We will.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Check -- Check the record. He -- He
had a list of things that he -- were to be changed, but other than
that, nothing needs to be changed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We very well may have
approved an item that staff has to do in two days.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything else?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, anything else?
MS. FILSON: Nothing. Thank you.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR KENSINGTON PARK, PHASE 3-A -
WITH
STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR SILVER LAKES, PHASE II-B - WITH
STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-454 REGARDING PETITION AV-96-019, APPROVAL TO RECORD
THE
FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN HARSH UNIT EIGHT REPLAT" AND APPROVAL TO
VACATE
THOSE LANDS PREVIOUSLY PLATTED AS "PELICAN HARSH UNIT EIGHT" AND AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGES 30 THROUGH 34 - WITH STIPULATIONS
AND
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16A4 - Withdrawn
Item #16A5
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "WATERWAYS OF NAPLES UNIT ONE" -
WITH
STIPULATIONS, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE & ESCROW AGREEMENT
Item #16A6
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR PELICAN HARSH, UNIT
TWELVE
- WITH STIPULATIONS & ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A7
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER, SEWER AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES FOR BAY COLONY
GOLF CLUB AT PELICAN HARSH - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, ASSIGNMENT
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
OR. Book Pages
Item #16B1
FY96 CARRY FORWARD FOR THE IHMOKALEE FOOTBALL/SOCCER FIELD PROJECT
#80027
Item #1682 - This item has been deleted
Item #1683 - This item has been deleted
Item #1684
AUTHORIZATION TO WAIVE THE BID PROCESS AND CONTINUE THE USE OF
BIOXIDE
FOR CONTROL OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE ODOR TO DAVIS WATER & WASTE
INDUSTRIES,
INC.
Item #1685 - This item has been deleted
Item #1686 - This item has been deleted
Item #1687 - This item has been deleted
Item #1688
APPROVAL OF EASEMENT FOR PROPERTY ACCESS ACROSS C.R. 951 CANAL AT
THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 26
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 96-455 ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS RELATIVE
TO
THE PURCHASE OF A PLAQUE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MEMORIAL TREE
PROGRAM
Item #16C2
AWARD BID NO. 96-2545, RELATING TO HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES AND
FUNGICIDES USED AT VARIOUS COUNTY FACILITIES FOR TURF MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES, TO VARIOUS BIDDERS ON A PER ITEM BASIS
Item #16C3
REPORT REGARDING AN EHERGENCY PURCHASE, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $1,200.00,
FOR
LIQUID CHLORINE FOR THE IHMOKALEE AQUATIC FACILITY AND THE GOLDEN
GATE
AQUATIC FACILITY
Item #16C4
AGREEHENT TO TERMINATE LEASE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
IHMOKALEE
CHILD CARE CENTER, INC.
Item #16C5
AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE SUBLEASE AND A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER
COUNTY AND TECH OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.
Item #16D1
REPORT REGARDING THE EHERGENCY REPAIRS RELATING TO THE THERMAL
STORAGE
CHILLED WATER SYSTEM WITH S.L. PAGE CORPORATION, IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$27,445.00
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 96-456 APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS, NOT TO EXCEED
$2,000.00, FOR A PICNIC TO RECOGNIZE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF COLLIER
COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 87-5, WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT PERSONNEL RELATED
EXPENDITURES ARE VALID AND PROPER FOR COUNTY PURPOSES
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1994 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
No. Date
1994-141 9/18/96
Item #1663
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented to the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred to the
various departments as indicated:
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:42 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara Drescher and Christine E. Whitfield, RPR