BCC Minutes 05/28/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 28, 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 also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:02 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON: 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 Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting
to order on this 28th day of May, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you lead
us in an invocation and a pledge, please?
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks to you
this morning for the wonder that you have bestowed on our community,
Collier County, and its people.
Father, we give thanks for the special weekend that we
have just completed and the opportunity to honor and recognize
veterans throughout our country who have made that important sacrifice
to make this the greatest country in the world.
Father, this morning we pray for our Commander In Chief,
our Governor, our elected officials, and especially this county
commission as they make the important business decisions that affect
our community.
We give special thanks also for the opportunity to
recognize certain achievement on the part of our employees and always
thanks for the people of this county. We pray these things in Jesus'
name. hen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
MR. DORRILL: Big crowd.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have some changes to the
agenda today?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. And good morning, Mr. Chairman
and commissioners. I have three add-on items this morning. They are
under the board's portion of the agenda. The first one is item
10(B). You have a memorandum attached to your change list on this
one. It is a discussion concerning the Naples Park drainage
moratorium. It's at the request of Commissioner Hancock.
The next one will be 10(C) which is a request concerning
current and future action regarding commercial vehicle ordinance.
And the final one, 10(D), is at the request of
Commissioner Norris which is the appointment of all -- alternates to
the county canvassing board for the September primary.
I have one change item that I would like to move off of
the consent agenda and on to the regular agenda this morning just for
a brief point of clarification. It's item 16(B)(6) which is under
public works. It is moving and will become 8(B)(3).
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was 16(D)(6)?
MR. DORRILL: B as in boy 6.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Moving and become 8(B)(3) which was a
recommend -- recommendation to adopt the median opening master plan
for Pelican Bay Boulevard.
And, Mr. Chairman, that's all that I have this morning.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, anything else
today?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing further. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I have several items on
communication, though.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I have an update under
communications.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We need a motion then.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the amenda
and -- the agenda as amended.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: The amenda.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Does that include the consent
agenda?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And consent agenda.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 7, 1996 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF
MAY 8, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Approval of minutes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 7, 1996, and the
special meeting of May 8, 1996.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval of the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE CREWS OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES/HELICOPTER OPERATIONS - ADOPTED
Proclamations. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have one, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do, and I'm honored to get to
read a proclamation to honor the Emergency Medical Services helicopter
operation. And Diane Flagg who is the EMS director and the flight
team are all here to accept this proclamation. So if you'll come
forward and face the cameras while I read this, I'd appreciate it.
Whereas, Collier County commenced a dedicated helicopter
air ambulance program on August 21, 1986, to serve the needs of
citizens and visitors to Collier County; and
Whereas, the helicopter has safety -- safely flown 7,800
missions and transported 6,100 patients; and
Whereas, in the course of the past 10 years, the
helicopter has flown 5,000 accident-free flight hours; and
Whereas, in achieving this milestone, the pilots,
mechanic, and flight medics have demonstrated their exemplary
abilities, discipline, and commitment to flight safety excellence; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners would like to
take this opportunity to offer its appreciation and gratitude to the
county's emergency services department helicopter pilots, mechanic,
and flight medics for their contributions to flight safety and to the
citizens of Collier, our county government, and our community
welfare.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the crews of emergency
medical services helicopter operation individually listed below be
recognized for their outstanding and continuing dedication to Collier
County.
Peter Bolton, chief pilot; Mike Manning, pilot; Paul
Curtis, pilot; Mike Marsh, mechanic; Walter Kopka, flight medic; Matt
Vila, flight medic; Paul Baumgardner, flight medic; Ricky Garcia,
flight medic; Laurie Klingerman, flight medic, Brian Swindale, flight
medic.
Done and ordered this 28th day of May, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a -- and a
second for acceptance of the proclamation. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
That's accepted.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, briefly I'd just like to
thank you on behalf of the EHS flight team briefly and -- and also the
Chief Pilot, Peter Bolton, who's put a lot of time and effort into
making this flight program achieve the -- the milestones that it has
achieved. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We have one service award
this morning to present to Skip Camp. Is Skip here with us today?
There he comes. Skip has been with the county now -- he's in
facilities management, and he's been with the county for 15 years.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great suit, Skip. Is that new?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fifteen-year pin and a chastising
from Commissioner Hac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Now that these brief ceremonies
have concluded our --
Item #5C1
EHPLOYEE SAFE DRIVER AWARDS - PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One more.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- ceremonial portion -- we've got
one more? Oh, yes.
MR. DORRILL: Biggie.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes, we do, as a matter of fact.
It's very important to the county to have safe drivers. We have a
number of vehicles and people that drive them under our employ. And
if -- if they're safe drivers, of course, that saves everyone a lot of
money. So we have some awards to present those today. And
Commissioner Matthews is going to do it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. It -- it's indeed a pleasure. And again, we're -- we're
pleased to acknowledge county employees who've driven hundreds of
thousands of miles and in this case I believe, Mr. Dotrill, more than
two million miles --
MR. DORRILL: Almost two million.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- is what these employees
represent in safe driving without an accident and without a moving
violation. It's quite an achievement. Considering the hazards of
today's highways, these are very significant achievements deserving of
public recognition. And with great appreciation, the following
personnel are presented safe driver awards, and please come forward as
your name is called.
Randy Casey, utilities engineering inspector, planning
services department. Randy has driven over 200,000 miles beginning
October 29, 1984. Randy, my pleasure. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good job.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're doing far better than
I am.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Incredible.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None of yours ended up in the
canal, did it, Randy?
MR. DORRILL: Hey, Randy, why don't you stay up here in
the front till everybody comes up. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next is Beato -- and I'm going
to crucify this word -- Guerra, Guerra, equipment operator 1, road and
bridge section. Beato has driven over 175,000 miles beginning
November 18 of 1980. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good work.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: John Hall, electrician,
facilities management department. John has driven over 190,000 miles
beginning May 5 of 1980. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good work, John.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Gary Hamm, equipment operator 1,
road and bridge section. Gary has driven over 160,000 miles beginning
January 24, 1983. Thank you, Gary.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good job, Gary.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good going.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Daryl Hughes, engineer 1, office
of capital projects management. Daryl has driven over 300,000 miles
beginning July 6, 1981.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Donell Nobles, engineer 2,
office of capital projects management. Donell has driven over 250,000
miles beginning December 10, 1983. And Donell is apparently driving
some more miles as we talk. We'll see that he gets this award.
Jeff Page, battalion commander, Emergency Medical
Services department. Jeff has driven over 160,000 miles beginning
April 6, 1981.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good job, Jeff.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good job.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that doesn't count the lives
he's saved.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good job. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: You did those a little faster than most of
the other employees did.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Enrique Salas, crew leader, road
and bridge section. Enrique has driven over 195,000 miles beginning
October 10, 1979. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Jeronimo Salas, crew leader,
road and bridge section. Jeronimo has driven over 185,000 miles
beginning July 21, 1980. Must run in the family; right?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Jeronimo, thank you. Well done.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, that concludes the
pre -- presentations.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank all of you very much.
Another couple of hundred thousand miles, that's what we're looking
for. You got a good start, but keep it going.
Item #8B2
REPORT AND RECOMHENDATION ON THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGES IN THE PALM
RIVER-WILLOUGHBY ACRES AREA - STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS
Okay. We're ready at this point then to move to item
8(B)(2), a report and recommendation on the replacement of bridges in
Palm River/Willoughby Acres area.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. Agenda
item 8(B)(2) is both a report and request for direction by staff or
from staff to address an issue that's been brought up by the South
Florida Water Management District. They're in the process of
enlarging the canal along Immokalee Road. In so doing they've
identified some locations where there's some serious constraints to
drainage.
And one such location is at the Palm River Boulevard
bridge. At that location the state is proposing on removing the
bridge, excavating the canal to the appropriate cross-section, and
then replacing the bridge.
The bridge that exists there is -- is a older two-lane
bridge. It's structurally sound. And if the state goes ahead and
removes the bridge, the county, of course, would like to have the
option of replacing it with something that meets current day standards
not only in terms of travel lanes but also providing bike lanes and
sidewalks.
As a result, staff has been negotiating with the state
relative to a two-party agreement where, in fact, the state would pay
the county to undertake the work of bridge removal, of canal
excavation, and bridge replacement with the idea the county would add
funds to that project so the results are a three-lane bridge rather
than a two-lane bridge and something that meets our current day
standards.
The agenda item outlines the conditions for a expected
two-party agreement. The conditions ob -- obviously include the work
that I've just outlined. They're including a payment of $350,000 to
not only address the replacement of the Palm River Boulevard bridge
but the removal of the culverts at Lakeland Avenue. And that project
in essence was done last year during the summer rains as a result of a
culvert failure.
Today we're asking the board to recognize that there may
be some advantage in the county going ahead and entering into a
two-party agreement recognizing that if we become involved with
replacement of the Palm River Boulevard bridge, then the concern we
have is one of circulation and access for Palm River, an area that has
over 2,000 dwelling units and generates a fairly large amount of
traffic.
And the staff has come up with three different
alternatives relative to providing access. One that's previously been
approved and directed by the board is the interconnection of Piper
Boulevard between Palm River and Willoughby Acres. The final
right-of-way phase is in progress. Once the design is completed,
we're revising permits to comply with the right-of-way that is being
provided the county and which the county is also purchasing.
I would expect that that project could go very quickly.
So sometime during the summer we will build and interconnect Piper
Boulevard between the two subdivisions itself. That would provide
some improvement to access.
The concern then would be if we remove the Palm River
Boulevard bridge, yes, there's some alternative access, but it may not
be sufficient to handle the large number of trips coming and going at
Palm River.
Two other alternatives include building the Palm River
Boulevard bridge in phases. That would increase the cost and delay
that particular construction time table. But that's one alternative
that the county has.
The third, of course, is to consider another bridge
location so that there's another bridge in place to serve Palm River
during the time in which the Palm River Boulevard bridge is being
removed. There's been quite a number of discussions between property
owners and staff at the county.
And the idea that's being considered at this point is an
extension of Airport-Pulling Road but an extension that simply crosses
the canal and ties in to the extension of Piper Boulevard itself. The
big advantage of this proposal is that it ties both subdivisions into
a signalized intersection so people can safely make those turning
movements at a traffic signal.
The concern, of course, is one of dollars. As the
outline in the agenda reflects, the staff would like to proceed with
negotiating an agreement with South Florida, proceed with the design
of a replacement bridge, and consider the Airport Road extension
subject to future funding or subject to a public-private partnership
of one kind.
With that, that completes the staff's presentation, and
we'll try and address any questions the board may have. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Archibald,
under the current situation, if we were to undertake the replacement
of the Palm -- Palm River bridge, what other access would that
subdivision have? Only Cypress Way?
MR. ARCHIBALD: The two points of access would be
Cypress Way and the interconnection using Piper to the Euclid Avenue
bridge. And unfortunately that bridge right now is somewhat taxed in
regards to the peak hour movement in the morning.
But the commitment that was made by the board a number
of years ago, 1992, was, in fact, to assure that each subdivision had
two bridges for access at all times. The concern, of course, in
detouring traffic to Cypress and to the Euclid Avenue bridges would be
the route. Not only would it be a longer route, but we've got some
delays there now, and those delays would be extended.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So there would be an increase in
the turning movements at Euclid on to Immokalee which has already got
some serious problems.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Another question. What
-- what is the plan for the bridge at Cypress Way?
MR. ARCHIBALD: That bridge is structurally sound. We
have a turning radius problem at its inter -- intersection with
Immokalee Road. And what our plans were would be to improve the
turning radius at that bridge as part of the work in reconstructing or
removing and reconstructing the Palm River Boulevard bridge itself.
We would see no improvements before that time.
In regards to long term, if, in fact, the board
considers the Airport Road extension plan and if there is not only
public support but some public funding of that and private funding of
that, then obviously that bridge could allow the removal of the
Cypress Way bridge at some earlier point in time rather than it
continue to exist 10 or 20 years.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I have one -- one final
question. I've heard some comments from citizens who live in
Willoughby and the smaller subdivisions around there that the new
medical center going up right at Piper -- Piper Boulevard will
eventually ob -- obstruct Piper Boulevard from being widened. I -- I
don't think it will, but I'd like you to confirm for the record that
that's not so.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Actually the right-of-way for the Piper
extension is coming from the development of the medical building
itself.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I thought.
MR. ARCHIBALD: They're giving us 15 feet on their south
side, and we're acquiring 45 feet for a total of 60 feet of
right-of-way, so there will be plenty of room to locate a 24-foot-wide
roadway.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And you're going to go 24 foot
wide all the way to Euclid. I think right now some of that roadway's
only 18 feet or 16 feet.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. We weren't planning on going the
entire way. We may have to look at what the added cost would be to do
just that. You're right. Segments of that are 18. Other segments
are 24. We prefer to have 24 feet the entire way.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: It's a matter of what the intersection
with each bridge would end up looking like. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By way of background maybe to get
everyone up to speed on this, one of the main reasons this is on the
agenda is through the efforts of some residents in Palm River:
Ellwood Witt, Charles Healey, Wanda Nelson, Ben Ogleby, Robert
Forsythe, and some others. I was at an annual homeowners' meeting
there, and we discussed the bridge situation at Palm River.
And what is being proposed by Mr. Archibald under the
current budget scenario is probably one of the best situations we
could hope for. The problem wasn't so much with what he's proposing
or has proposed in the past but is much with the fact that we have one
light getting in and out of Palm River. We have no lights getting in
and out of Willoughby if I'm not mistaken.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's -- they're -- well, not
yet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not yet. And when that bridge
comes under repair, what -- Mr. Witt and many others put together is
in excess of two and a half million cars traveling over that bridge
are going to have to do so in a constrained manner or with no
protection getting in and out of the area.
So their main concern was, one, to have lighted access
two ways in and out of their subdivision at all times. And
understanding the demographics of that neighborhood, that makes
sense.
The second thing that came to my attention is we are
proposing to fix the Cypress Way East bridge. That bridge is a
nightmare. It's been a nightmare for the people who live there for
the longest time because the turn radius. Trucks have gotten stuck on
that bridge. They get onto the bridge and can't complete their turn,
can't back off. And I think twice in the last six months that has
happened.
So what we have is we have a very bad situation and
unsafe crossing at Cypress Way East getting out on to Immokalee Road
because of its proximity to the light. I think a lot of people had
the wits scared out of them coming out of that area.
So what I tried to do with Mr. Witt is sit down and talk
about how we can revise these and fix these situations long term. And
what we came up with is a crossing at Airport Road. It's not a new
idea. It's one you've heard before. What we have at this time is the
opportunity to use South Florida Water Management funds to kick off a
project that -- that may have otherwise been unaffordable at times if
we had to do it all on local dollar funds.
We knew the Palm River bridge was going to have to be
replaced in some form. And rather than fixing the Cypress Way East
bridge, I'd rather put that money towards a long-term solution which
is a crossing at Airport Road and Immokalee to get over to Piper
Boulevard.
This would provide a -- a positive flow intersection for
both Willoughby and Palm River, and it would give us a light during
the entire construction time for -- for the Palm River bridge. And it
would eliminate the Cypress Way East bridge all together in the
future, that crossing and that bridge itself.
All of that together provides to me a lot of benefit.
And as I looked at the cost analysis in options 1 and 2 presented to
us, it's a difference of approximately $150,000 to accomplish
something that would last for 20 years as opposed to something that
may have to be revisited again in 10 or 15.
The reason this is on the agenda today and the reason
there's a lot of people here today is because this is an important
safety issue to all the people in those neighborhoods. And what I
believe many of them are looking for is some direction from this board
to our staff on a scenario that does more than just fixes the existing
bridges and something that will improve the circulation for the long
term in that area.
So that's -- that's what I am asking of this board. My
personal preference is to place a priority of getting a bridge at
Airport Road and Immokalee to Piper Boulevard first and lighted,
remove the Cypress Way East bridge, and repair the -- the bridge, the
Palm River bridge, later so that we have a lighted access. That's --
that's my tack on this. And, you know, whether that's good, bad, or
otherwise we can talk about. But that's -- that's what I see as being
a long-term solution to a lot of problems that have existed for many
years in that area, and that's really --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I too have met with -- with
the Willoughby Acres citizens. And the only concern that arose in the
course of that meeting and after the meeting in general conversation
was the possibility -- and I know it's not a strong one, but there's a
possibility that Airport Road could eventually be extended north of
Piper which would eventually create some cut-through traffic for --
for Willoughby at whichever point at its farthest north that it went,
whether it be Mentor or Willowick or Johnnycake or whichever road.
And -- and I've talked with Mr. Archibald about this.
And he says there's no intention of the county to extend that road
further north than Piper Boulevard. If we move forward with this, I
would like to see a commitment from this board at this point that that
road not be extended north until the residents at Willoughby Acres
come and say we'd like you to do so because it will create cut-through
traffic. I don't know why they would come through and want us to do
that, but I -- I don't want to foster additional cut-through traffic
on any neighborhood.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can certainly declare that
as the intention. I -- intention. I don't know if we can legally
bind future --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- boards for it but --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- we can legally bind either.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I do know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the extension --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I do know the answer to that
question. You can't legally bind.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The extension of Airport Road
or any of that doesn't appear anywhere in our 20-year plan or beyond
currently, does it?
MR. ARCHIBALD: That's correct. Right now it's a
unfunded project either looking short term or long term.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not in our 2020 financial
feasibility plan?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is in the 2020, the so-called
25-year plan.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And is it in the need
assessment plan?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought it was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And at least in the immediate
future, the problem I have is the property owners just on the north
side of Piper across from this intersection were given the opportunity
by Mr. Archibald to participate in this bridge financially to take the
burden off the taxpayers and chose not to do so.
So as far as I'm concerned, it's going to be like
pulling teeth to get a roadway through there because those property
owners weren't willing to help solve a problem that's been long --
longstanding for a long time. So I don't really have any desire to
help out those folks. To go north of there, Airport Road north of
there, I think what we're dealing with then is to make sure that when
access to any type of arterial extension is provided that it doesn't
destroy a neighborhood.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we don't make that kind of
commitment as a policy statement, then we've -- we've probably made a
mistake. And I think we have in the past. Those commitments and
connections have to be looked at to make sure we don't adversely
impact neighborhoods to what extent we can avoid it.
So with that connection, I think we could at least state
an intent and some form of direction that that is -- is the -- the
hope and goal that that not be created.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me ask one more question on
this before we -- we go further. Is it not one of our policies, Mr.
Dotrill, in our -- our development code not to encourage road
construction that encourages cut-through traffic?
MR. DORRILL: I don't really know. I'm -- I'm looking
at the planners who are a lot smarter than I am.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Folks in Pine Ridge would tell
you no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I was gonna say we
certainly had that discussion on -- enough in regards to Pine Ridge.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: This -- this particular board has
been very protective about cut-through traffic and -- and
neighborhoods and the protection of neighborhoods. So I'm -- I'm
fairly confident that as long as this board's intact that something
like that's certainly not going to happen.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It may not be a bad idea the
next time that we address our -- our comp. plan to -- to adopt such a
policy. And at least some future board, while we can't bind them to
something, we -- we will at least require them to not only change the
policy but then to activate whatever it is they've decided to do.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, Commissioner Hancock,
with regard to Pine Ridge, we have made the commitment, of course, as
soon as the Vanderbilt extension is done to make the appropriate
adjustments there to discourage the cut throughs.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: An inappropriate jab. My
apologies.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hickory is essentially closed
now, isn't it?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we'll talk about that
later.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Via construction but --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Via construction, yeah, I know.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let's go to the public
speakers. Do we -- do we have some?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. We have just three. Mr.
Robbins, you'll be first followed by Mr. Witt. Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And for those -- for those public
speakers who may not have been here before, we generally allow five
minutes for public speaking and ask for you to state your name for
record, please.
MR. ROBBINS: Ned Robbins. I am the president of the
Palm River Homeowners' Association which will come out in print.
As the president of Palm River Homeowners' Association
for the past several years, I wish to address the dire need to replace
the Cypress Way East bridge with a new bridge to cross the canal
adjacent to Immokalee Road at the northern terminus of Airport-Pulling
Road. This new bridge would be erected in the current traffic light
-- at the current traffic light at Airport and Immokalee Roads.
You are all aware of the existing traffic pattern of
traffic entering and exiting Palm River across the current bridge some
hundred yards west of Airport Road intersection. The traffic is
generated from some 1,500 residences and over 3,000 people living in
it abutting the -- abutting Palm River Estates. In any state of
emergency as in a hurricane evacuation, down time at the Palm River
bridge light, a very large percentage of the resident population could
be virtually marooned.
The present Cypress Way East bridge exit on to a four
laned Immokalee Road with a median strip is totally inadequate to
handle the traffic going to the left. The bridge itself is over 25
years old and dangerously narrow to accommodate safely a constant flow
of two-way traffic. Its sister bridge at Euclid Avenue in Willoughby
Acres collapsed several years ago under the weight of a heavy
vehicle.
Currently a new medical facility is being constructed on
the east side of Cypress Way East at Piper Boulevard extension. Just
within this last week in violation of weight restrictions well posted,
heavy trucks loaded with some hundred 50-foot-long roof trusses have
used the bridge. Under this weight the bridge surface has developed
new and possibly significant tracks -- cracks. To the naked eye, it
appears that the road sides have sloped down and might separate with
any further heavy use.
I believe that time is of the essence to replace this
bridge. It should be replaced with a new construction capable of
handling safely the ever increasing number of vehicles. The South
Florida Water Management District is planning to replace the bridge at
Palm River Boulevard now too short to accommodate the increased flow
of the canal, widened and deepened in the last year. It has
designated 150,000 yard dollars -- $150,000 for this replacement to
divide cost with Collier County.
I understand that while these funds are from the current
fiscal budget, the district is willing to direct these funds towards
the construction of the new bridge at Airport and Immokalee Road at
the intersection right now and appropriate new funds in subsequent
budgets for the replacement of the Palm River bridge. It would seem,
therefore, that the county already has half of the necessary monies
for immediate construction of a new bridge to replace the one at
Cypress Way East.
This bridge is aging, abused, and unsafe. It poses an
ongoing threat to safety of any user. It must not be allowed to
continue as a major artery for people who live in Palm River and for
all others who must use this antiquated and dangerous facility. It
must be replaced now with a new bridge at Airport-Pulling and
Immokalee Road. Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Witt, and then we'll have Ms. Dykes.
MR. WITT: Ladies and gentlemen, I've seen some
beautiful smiles on your face today. I think some of them have
disappeared.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Name, please.
MR. WITT: I am going to be 88 years old June 6.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ellwood, would you give your name
for the record, please?
MR. WITT: I'm Ellwood H. Witt --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. WITT: -- Senior. I am one of the last two people
that developed Palm River Country Club. I am the original developer
of Willoughby Acres. In the very beginning of the county when we drew
our maps -- and I have a map of it here that I printed myself because
I was in charge of sales at that time -- they took away from our land,
which was right, 100 feet from the center of Euclid -- from the center
of Immokalee Road to the edge of a street which we had to give 60 feet
more which is called Piper Boulevard. They took that. I found out in
the meantime that they had given Sharondale part of that road. It
made me intensely angry that we give something up and somebody else
gets advantage of it from the county.
On top of that, I resent very much the taking away of
the other bridge I built over in Willoughby Acres that could have been
improved. Now, since that time -- now, this may take me a little
longer. I have 125 hours solid work in this, and I provided on the
26th of February to Mr. Hancock for each one of the five commissioners
a detailed and accurate report on the crossings of bridges at Palm
River.
Now, I did that after I did my own street and found my
own street had 77,000 crossings a year. That's Fairway Circle.
Now, I went to the newspaper the other day. Finally
there was an article in it, but they left out two-third or one-third
of the important things, the things that we cannot -- we have to
estimate. I have here in this estimation a sheet which I want to read
to you that you people have that 75 percent of our residents used to
be semi-retired. To my amazement, there's only 30 percent. And all
these younger people that bought homes in Palm River, practically
every one of them have two cars they have to drive to work every day
so they can pay for those houses.
We got 90 percent of the residents, and I did about
one-third of them. Because I couldn't get them, I went dinnertime.
And not one of them ever refused to give me the statistics. That's
how important it is to them. They can't be here today. They're
working.
On top of that, we got all the condominiums except two
to help us. Pebble Shores did do one-third, but Piper's Boulevard
were too -- Piper's Point with 245 gave us an estimate. We don't take
estimates. And on top of that, we have the sheriff, fire, ambulance,
and other services coming in there every day. We have a postal
service. We have mercantile delivery. You know that the builders and
so forth -- 80 percent of the lots in Palm River are serviced by lawn
mowers and things like that, and we have garbage trucks. My house
gets four deliveries a week. That's garbage and waste control and
everything like that. These are heavy equipment going across there.
Palm River themself gave me a slip of a number of people
they do a year, and with -- you know, in Palm River anymore it's a
public course now. Only about 5 percent of us go to Palm -- are
members of Palm River. All those people that come to Palm River now
come from the outside. I had a list of that, of the whole thing, how
many they do. And over a period of a year they serve 225 meals a day
7, 8 months a year. That's that.
You have the south -- or the Summer House which is a
beautiful facility. My sister just died there a week ago, and it's
wonderful. They are in danger every time they cross that bridge. I
could get no help from management.
Can I have a few minutes more, please?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No, sir. We -- we limit them to
five minutes, please. If you could wrap up for us, we'd appreciate
it.
MR. WITT: I'll do it real fast. We estimate that on
top of that two and a half million that you have there, there is
another seven hundred thousand crossings all probably heavier material
than you had before.
This is a necessity. And as Mr. Robbins pointed out,
two big trucks in the last six months. There were three last week,
and they had to be lifted with things to get off the bridge, and the
bridge is cracked. This is important. We're not rich people. We're
-- we're regular people that pay our taxes, and you have a list of
all the taxes that's paid out there in your report in each one of it.
And I appreciate that you will give this a fast consideration. We
need help fast. I'll be dead before you get it if you keep it going
on the way it is. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Witt.
MR. DORRILL: And Ms. Dykes.
MS. DYKES: Good morning. My name is Nancy Dykes, and
I'm president of the Willoughby Acres Property Owners' Association.
There are two errors in the article in the Naples Daily News
yesterday. The Lakeland Avenue bridge was removed about nine months
ago, as everybody knows, much to the distress of some of the
Willoughby Acres residents who live on the eastern parts of Willoughby
Acres.
And the res -- the residents of Willoughby Acres as far
as I know are not opposed to the extension of Airport Road to cross
Cocohatchee Canal. In fact, many of the Willoughby Acres residents
feel that the bridge will provide relief from dangerous conditions
that exist at Euclid Avenue intersection with Immokalee Road during
season.
That bridge also has a radius problem. School buses,
for instance, cannot turn if there's another car exiting on that
bridge. And dump trucks and such have to turn from the travel lanes
to the deceleration lane.
The light at Airport Road and Immokalee Road will
provide Willoughby residents with safe entrance on to both Immokalee
Road and Airport Road.
Many residents, however, are concerned about the
extension of Airport Road north from Piper Boulevard. Airport Road is
commercial from beginning to end. And should the road be extended
north of Piper Boulevard, that section also would become commercial.
Should Airport Road be extended, it would lie between two residential
communities, Sharondale Condominiums of Palm River and the western
extension of the drives in Willoughby Acres.
Please note that there's no way that Airport Road can be
extended any great distance because of houses that have been built in
Falcon Crest and Imperial Golf Estates. But it could be extended far
enough north to destroy the residential quality of Willoughby Acres,
notably Wickliffe Drive and Mentor Drive. There is undeveloped land
at the western end of Willoughby Drive and Johnnycake Drive. Perhaps
that's a candidate for some green space which we hear so much about in
the paper.
The county -- my records show that the county now owns
the westernmost lots of the western ends of Wickliffe Drive and Mentor
Drive. I believe these are conserved areas that were required when
the land was developed.
My request is that Airport Road terminate at Piper
Boulevard and that no further extension of the road be allowed.
Certainly no consideration should be given to extending Airport Road
to Mentor Drive to provide cut-through access to Livingston Road which
is presently under construction to the east of Willoughby Acres.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Dykes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As Ellwood may have impressed on
you or Mr. Witt may have impressed on you, people went door to door to
get this information I gave you this morning. And relatively few or
no doors were unknocked I guess you could say. And that -- that is a
-- in my opinion a strong testimony to the concern and the level of
attention this matter deserves.
What I would like to suggest -- and I'll make a motion
to that effect -- is that the county proceed with the agreement with
South Florida Water Management District with the intent of
constructing a bridge crossing north of Airport Road to Piper
Boulevard; upon completion of that bridge, that the Palm River bridge
shall be replaced, and this should occur prior to 1997 according to
the South Florida Water Management District; and that the Cypress Way
East bridge either be removed in total or converted to a pedestrian
throughway if it's advantageous to do so. It could also save us some
money.
The question of funding on this matter is simply that of
-- of the -- the road funds that we talked about an overage of about
seven or eight months ago if I remember correctly. It seems to me
there were some uncommitted funds in road and bridge. This is
probably one of the most worthwhile projects they could be expended
for. You've heard from a few people, but you see a few more here.
And I would just ask for your consideration of my motion.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Archibald, what --
what do you think this motion bears in cost?
MR. ARCHIBALD: We may be looking at an expenditure of
three quarters of a million dollars for the Airport Road extension
bridge.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: By itself.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. All right. Let me ask the
-- before we get a second, let me ask the motion maker if he will add
to his motion a statement of intent not to extend Airport Road in the
future past Piper.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I was going to ask.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gladly. Motion maker amends.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is there a second for that motion?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm going to second the motion.
I have one question, though. The $350,000 coming from the South
Florida Water Management, you've already incorporated that into your
financial feasibility for this project?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, but only for the replacement of the
Palm River boule -- Boulevard bridge, not for the extension of
Airport-Pulling.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. But in your option 2 with
the total cost of seven hundred and fifty to nine hundred and fifty
thousand dollars, you have replace Palm River Boulevard bridge, three
hundred to four hundred thousand dollars. Have you already consumed
the three hundred and fifty from South Florida, or can we deduct
that?
MR. ARCHIBALD: That's strictly an expenditure side.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: So we would be deducting that from the
total roughly nine fifty.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we have a net requirement of
about four hundred to five hundred and fifty thousand.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Probably more than that. And again,
keep in mind option 1 was based upon current day funds. Option 2
reflects dollars over a longer period of time. To fund this short
term -- to design it in '96, '97 and to build it in '98 let's say,
those are large dollars to come up with in a relatively short period
of time.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me ask you, Mr. Archibald, what
would be the cost if we just removed and replaced Cypress Way East
bridge and did nothing else at this point? What would that cost be?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Three hundred.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Probably 350,000, in that range.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well -- yeah. I'm having a
difficult time trying to figure out why it costs seven hundred and
fifty to build a new bridge and half that to tear down an old one and
build a new one.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The reason being is that if you take a
look at Airport-Pulling Road, you've got a four-lane roadway. And one
of the problems that we see in extending Airport-Pulling Road is
having to build a so-called bridge and a half or two bridges, one
bridge for the southbound movement and one bridge for the northbound
movement. So we've got a alignment problem that we may be able to
solve when we go back and do the design work. But if we can't, we
need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. And that is, in
fact, building two bridges.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Would -- would it be your intention
to build this Airport Road extension bridge as a two-lane facility,
one lane north, one lane south?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, no, it would not be. And keep in
mind if we only built one lane, we would still have to build two
bridges. And again, the problem is alignment. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: But I would foresee two northbound and
two southbound because of the volume of traffic both from Willoughby
and Palm River.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Part of my -- the reason for
making my motion and wording it the way I did is that this item and
its funding appropriation would have to come back to the board. It's
not as if we do it today and the dollar amount being undecided is just
who cares what it is; when it comes back, we'll approve it. I mean,
we need to look at the cost, at our options to construct and what that
does.
But at a minimum, I wanted to set the tone that we need
to pursue this as an option first and foremost before spending any
dollars on repairing the Cypress Way East bridge or going down and
beginning to reconstruct the Palm River bridge without giving another
lighted access to -- to both Willoughby Acres and Palm River.
So, you know, although this is -- is seeking direction
on these items, it certainly isn't a -- it can't be a final statement
because we haven't appropriated the funds. And I think some of the
questions we're talking about now will be ferreted out such as what is
the cost of design and so forth so that we can take a better look at
them. But my intent today was to seek direction to our staff on -- on
producing those -- or producing that information.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, the option 1
which is replace Palm River Boulevard bridge and replace the Cypress
Way bridge, is that money already budgeted in our -- in our five-year
plan?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Neither of those projects have a budget
at this time.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Neither of them.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Neither of them.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was hoping you would tell me
that option 1 was budgeted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Huh-uh.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, the Cypress Way bridge issue is
one that is in the distant future. That's why those dollars, whether
to remove or to rebuild, are not necessarily current day dollars.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: So we're looking primarily at the cost
of the Airport-Pulling Road extension and the cost of the Palm River
Boulevard bridge replacement short term.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So this is net ex -- net
expenditure that we're going to have to -- that we're going to have to
allocate over the next probably 2 years, '97, '98; is that correct?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. And as was indicated, we need to
go back and take a very close look from a preliminary design
standpoint of what we can do at both locations and whether or not we
can, in fact, reduce any of those costs. And when we come back with
not only the agreement with South Florida but also come back with some
preliminary design information, that will be -- that should provide
some added facts for the board to make a subsequent decision on
funding.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'll --
I'll second the motion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm confused. I'm confused about
-- the motion is to give direction to staff to explore this further
and to try to -- and to bring back budget items for us, or are we
giving them direction that put this in your budget, Mr. Dotrill,
because this is -- we're going to spend it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I don't think we can
because we don't know what it is.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. That's my concern.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't know the final amount.
What I am saying is transportation administration has been operating
on the basis that the Palm River bridge and the Cypress Way East
bridge are the only two crossings on that end of the development.
What I'm saying is we need to change that thinking, that the two
crossings should be one at Airport Road to serve both Willoughby and
Palm River and one at Palm River. And whatever it takes in -- in
design initiative and -- and, you know, developing the cost for that
needs to come back to us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So your suggestion then is
that we declare that as our intent and we deal with the financial
aspect when they can bring it back to us in detail. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's right. And it makes sense
because you've got two communities there with a problem, Willoughby
and Palm River, and this -- this would go to address both of their
problems.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, before you call
the question, we -- I may want to ask the motion maker to make another
amendment. Mr. Archibald, you and I have talked about the Euclid
Avenue bridge and the median opening there and all the turning --
turning motions that are going on. And I had asked you to -- to put
together a scenario of what we might do to solve that problem. Have
you been able to put any dollars to that, you know, roughly what it
might cost?
MR. ARCHIBALD: No, not at this time. I think one
factor in our favor is that the connection between Piper and the new
bridge at Livingston, that's been substantially completed. And
traffic over time will begin to use that. And that probably more than
anything we can do will provide some relief for the conditions at
Euclid Avenue and Immokalee Road.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So -- so your suggestion is that
we wait to make -- make the median adjustments there to see what the
traffic patterns are going to be? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We only need one bad accident,
and we'll be sorry we did that.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, we've made a lot of signing
changes there. There's not a whole lot of changes we can make to the
median other than trying to force those movements that are looking to
make a U-turn, try and force those movements to the next median
opening to the east.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: So that -- that was our goal in the
report that I had submitted.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: For the board and I think I've
shared this with -- with -- with Commissioner Hancock because all
these kind of go together, but we were discussing making median
alterations at Euclid and Immokalee Road to limit the turning motions
available because right now it's a full opening with the exception of
a U-turn sign that people are ignoring, and we're having left and
right turns coming from the Circle K, left and right turns from Euclid
and turning motions, U-turn motions, in all directions. And it's an
accident waiting to happen. So if you don't mind, could you get me
the cost for what it would cost to make the median adjustments -- MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and let us decide if we need
to go forward with that?
MR. ARCHIBALD: (Mr. Archibald nodded head.)
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If there's no further questions,
I'll call this one. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
That passes unanimously.
Item #883
MASTER MEDIAN OPENING PLAN FOR PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND REQUEST FOR
PROCESS FOR AMENDMENT THERETO - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Our next item is the former 16(B)(6) which is now
8(B)(3).
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the commission. I want to thank you and staff for pulling this item
off of the consent agenda to give us an opportunity to discuss this.
For the record, my name is Butt Saunders. I'm of
counsel with the Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo law firm. And we are
representing the developer of the St. Raphael at Pelican Bay.
I have -- I wanted to give each of you some information
on this prior to this morning's meeting so you'd have some heads up on
it, but I was only able to meet with Commissioner Matthews and
Commissioner Norris. I would like to ask Mr. Weigel if you would give
these to the other three commissioners so that you'll have a full
package of information on what this item is all about. I also have
Mark Minor here to answer any technical questions that may come up.
And this is a rather simple matter. The Pelican Bay
services division, the taxing district in Pelican Bay, is requesting
the approval of a master median opening plan for Pelican Bay Boulevard
and to approve a process for amendment of that plan. That's what's
presented to the county commission. The developer of the St. Raphael
on Hay 10 of this year received site development plan approval from
the county staff which shows a median opening in the vicinity of the
St. Raphael that is not on that median opening plan that was approved
or has been recommended by the Pelican Bay services division.
And we simply want to make sure that when and if the
master median opening plan is approved by the county commission that
it recognizes that there's an existing site development plan that's
already been approved by staff that shows the opening across from the
St. Raphael.
I believe -- and I don't want to put words in Mr.
Archibald's mouth. I believe there's no objection from staff. As a
matter of fact, the site development plan was approved by staff in
Hay, earlier this month.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Archibald, you get to comment
on your own here.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The policy that staff is asking the
board to consider is, one, to accept the master median opening plan;
two, to approve the amendment process; and three, to go ahead and
grandfather in all the approved PUDs, the approved SDPs. If, in fact,
this project has the approved SDP, then it would end up being
grandfathered in if that approved SDP precedes board action if the
board elects to approve this today.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one side of this that --
that we haven't heard, and that's from the Pelican Bay services
division. I see Mr. Ward is here.
Jim, didn't the Pelican Bay HSTBU hear and discuss this
item in reference to this project? I remember something along those
lines.
MR. WARD: Yes. For your record, Jim Ward,
administrator of Pelican Bay services. I think what George is asking
for is appropriate in light of the fact that we have had a number of
developments in the past few months that have come to -- we've come to
understand that there are median openings proposed for Pelican Bay
that are, quite frankly, inconsistent with the median opening plan
that you have in front of you. That includes the St. Raphael site.
I was not aware that -- that St. Raphael had received
their site development plan approval. The Pelican Bay services
division advisory committee had specifically sent a letter to, I
think, George and others requesting that the St. Raphael median
opening be considered by the board on its own merits outside of the
context of this median opening plan. But we had some major problems
with it. It was just not an appropriate median opening for Pelican
Bay at this time so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that -- that letter received
no response as far as --
MR. WARD: I had communicated with George on a number of
occasions about it. And again, I'm not sure I was aware that the site
development plan had been received. I saw the letter from a county
staff individual, and I know I'm cc'd on that letter, but I was not
aware that that granted them final site development plan approval.
if it did, so be it. If it didn't --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we --
MR. WARD: You know, we did have a problem with the St.
Raphael site plan and that specific median opening. However, I think
the merits of Mr. Archibald's request to you to consider a process to
allow future median openings to be considered by the commission in
Pelican Bay is appropriate.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So, Mr. Ward, what you're saying
then is this median opening, if it was approved in the final site
development plan, then your feeling is that it should be included in
the master median plan.
MR. WARD: I'm not -- I'm not sure I know whether or not
it actually has been approved. I only heard that from the -- from Mr.
Saunders this morning. So if it has -- you know, if it has been
included and it has final site development plan, I would like to have
some time with Mr. Archibald to discuss how we, you know, proceed in
that matter. The median opening plan that was submitted to you by
PBSD is the median opening plan that we would like the board to
consider. If we have to include St. Raphael, so be it. It's not
something that we would recommend to you, though.
MR. SAUNDERS: I think --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Ward.
MR. SAUNDERS: I think Mr. --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we do have -- the letter May
10 says -- you know, calls it the approval, so it's a May 10 letter
talking about the approval. And -- and, you know, Mr. Weigel will do
his job I know. But we can talk about this as much as we want to.
But if they're approved, they're approved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it received its approval
somewhere between when the Pelican Bay MSTBU met and discussed this
and turned it down and this was presented to us. How clever.
MR. SAUNDERS: I think Mr. Ward and I are really saying
the same thing at this point. And I want to thank Mr. Ward for that.
We will assure and staff will -- will be assured and will check and
make sure that there is final SDP approval. And based on that, we
would want the master plan to be conditioned upon those existing SDPs
that have been approved by staff.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, if there are no
registered speakers, I'm going to make a motion to approve the Pelican
Bay median opening plan as presented.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that include the notation
about St. Raphael?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately I think we're
legally bound that if they received a final SDP we don't have the
ability to now say no as much as I'd like to because I know what
happened here. I know the course of action, and I know why this plan
was approved on the 10th and why this is on our agenda today. And I
don't like it, but that's the way it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't get it. What is it?
What was the -- what happened?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Pelican Bay MSTBU --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Was that a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- met and discussed this
particular project and its median -- median opening and did not like
it at all, didn't want it in there, found it was not consistent with
what else had been done in Pelican Bay. This was then put on our
agenda to approve at some point, and in the interim this project
received its final SDP. It may be all entirely accidental, and it's
really academic.
MR. WARD: It is academic.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It doesn't matter now. We're --
we're stuck with what has been approved. But from this point forward,
all approvals must comply with this plan if the board approves it
today. And that's simply my motion.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I think there's a couple
things that we need to clarify for the record. This site development
plan was submitted in November of 1995. And, quite frankly, on Friday
afternoon is when Tony Pires and I discovered that this was on the
agenda for approval. So I just don't want it to appear that we found
out that this was going to be on the agenda and then miraculously
wound up with an approval from staff because that's not the time
scenario that -- that took place. I just want the commission to be
aware of that. And I understand Commissioner Hancock's concern. That
did not happen, and I just want to assure you of that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Doesn't matter. The folks in
Pelican Bay think it did.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #8El
REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR GULFCOAST BOWLING COUNCIL FOR $44,244.00
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY C FUNDS - APPROVED
We'll move forward now to item 8(E)(1), funding for Gulf
Coast Bowling Council.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hiss Gansel, this is pretty
much in line with what we've done for several years with them and has
MS. GANSEL: That's absolutely correct, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- proven extremely
successful. I'll make a motion we approve the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Public speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is one of the --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, public speakers?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- better, more successful
items on our TDC.
MR. DORRILL: There are -- there are no registered
speakers on this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the record, some of the
hoteliers have actually told me they think this is a great category C
event, so I want to point that one out.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Very difficult to believe.
We have a motion and a second for approval. Hiss
Gansel, excellent presentation.
MS. GANSEL: Thank you very much. Thank you,
Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
There's none.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-253 APPOINTING DEBORAH HILL TO THE EVNIRONHENTAL POLICY
TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
Next item is an appointment of member to Environmental
Policy Technical Advisory Board. Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. I would like very much to
nominate Deborah Hill for that position.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that if that's a
motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, according to the
spreadsheet here, Miss Hill has no experience in any of the
categories.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually I've -- to hear that
doesn't sound good, but one of my complaints is for the different
environmental boards we have people who are solely active and make
their living, make their dollars, on environmental activities. And I
think it's important to have a mix of real people who are just
applying everyday common sense on there as well.
So I don't see that just because she doesn't have a
background in wildlife management or pollution control or estuare --
estuarine process as a negative. If she's a good civic person and has
some common sense, I'd like to have that aspect on the board as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for that. And also she
is the survey manager with Johnson Engineering and serves as a -- on
the natural resources and environmental policies subcommittee for the
chamber EDC. So it's not like there's a lack of experience or lack
of, you know, basic information on her part.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We do have a motion and a second to
nominate Miss Hill. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Passes four to one.
Item #10B
DISCUSSION RE NAPLES PARK MORATORIUM - STAFF TO WORK WITH DEP TO LIFT
MORATORIUM
And our next item is an item added on concerning Naples
Park. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Real briefly, the -- it's come --
repeatedly come to my attention the moratorium we have in Naples Park
that was a part of the D -- the permit requirement through DEP is the
only one in the state of its kind. I think it was a chip that was
bargained away in the process very early on without a lot of
scrutiny.
And what I'd like to request is board action and attempt
to remove the moratorium regardless of the project moving ahead or not
on the basis that it's somewhat unheard of in the rest of the state.
And why Naples Park should be -- should be subjected to something that
other communities in the balance of the state are not to me is a
question I want answered.
So I'm requesting board direction to staff to begin
working with DEP in an attempt to limit or lift the moratorium.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to know why we have a
moratorium if no one else --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- in the state has one.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Because we're special.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- early on in the process in
order to kind of grease the wheels and get the permit through, the
project engineer felt that that would be one, I guess, selling point
of -- of getting the permit for the drainage system in Naples Park.
As much as I agree with that, the fact that it's a little unusual or a
lot unusual raises red flags for me.
And if there's a way to get it lifted, if there's a way
we can show that you can pipe your swale if you do it a certain way to
provide that precleansing and get it lifted under those conditions,
I'd like to pursue that.
But right now if we proceed with the Naples Park
drainage system, no one can fill their swales unless they're at least
-- I believe 36 inches deep is the benchmark right at this point.
And I just think there needs to be more flexibility and can be more
flexibility in that decision rather than a flat-out moratorium.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What was the motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion was to direct staff to
work with DEP to lift or alter the moratorium so people can cover
their swales in Naples Park.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks -- thanks to the Tom
Conrecode presentation, I was swayed heavily in favor.
MR. CONRECODE: If I could just add --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I was going to vote against it
until Mr. Conrecode had that brilliant presentation.
MR. CONRECODE: If I could just add one thing -- for the
record, Tom Conrecode from public works -- that moratorium is
established by your ordinance.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. We'd be happy to lift it
if DEP will agree.
MR. CONRECODE: But the intent is to eliminate the
filling of those until we've resolved the drainage issue. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Right. Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But doesn't -- doesn't that
ordinance expire, though, in December?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Every year.
MR. CONRECODE: Every year.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We renew it every year.
MR. CONRECODE: We renewed it again this year pending
the outcome of your -- your decision on the bids. As you know, the
bids are received, and that will be coming to you --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, Tom, my understanding is
that we have that because of the conditions on the permit issued by
DEP.
MR. CONRECODE: I'd -- I'd have to look. I didn't
realize it was a DEP permit.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If not, I'll bring the ordinance
back to repeal it next week but the --
MR. CONRECODE: Well, we have to advertise.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Three weeks. But yeah, I
appreciate that point. But again, I believe there's a DEP condition
that if we move ahead swales can't be filled, and that's the one I'm
focusing on right now.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, let me clarify since we've
gotten into this discussion. But my impression of the motion is that
we directed staff to work with the DEP to make sure that all the
concerns are -- are resolved and, if so, go ahead and lift the
moratorium; is that correct?
MR. CONRECODE: And if it doesn't require any DEP
coordination, then we'll simply bring it back to the board for
direction.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. Thank you, Tom.
Item #10C
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE COHMERCIAL VEHICLE
ORDINANCE - STAFF TO CONDUCT WORKSHOPS BEGINNING HID-JUNE
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. The next one, Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. You may recall we had
a discussion --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We didn't vote on that, did we?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a couple weeks back in
regards to the commercial vehicle ordinance during our EAR process,
Land Development Code, and so on. God bless our staff. They're --
they're trying to wrestle with a tough issue. But this one has just
frustrated me to no end.
I thought our direction was not to drop the issue but to
go back and try to come up with some wording so that in the next cycle
we did okay and that to go ahead and enforce those areas that were
obvious when someone was parking their dump truck in their yard, then
we'd -- we'd enforce that but that there were a number of gray areas
that our staff here couldn't describe to us.
I'm told that last week we gathered up -- and you can
correct me, Vince, if this is incorrect -- but we gathered up a number
of our staff and went on a, quote, sweep through the Golden Gate area
and handed out red tags to a couple of dozen or maybe more, dozens of
commercial vehicles that fall into that, quote, gray area. Some I'm
sure are clearly in violation, and some aren't. But it just seems to
me if we were going to have -- it was three weeks ago, and we said in
the next three or four weeks let's have public workshops and get the
input on this and try to get a common sense answer to this.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And in the next cycle address
it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and -- and come back
in the next cycle and deal with it. And it seems to me we -- we
haven't -- I haven't heard a word about any workshops so the public
has had no opportunity to participate. And now we're out doing a
sweep.
I'm wondering, A, why we're doing the sweep on the issue
that hasn't clearly been settled yet; and, B, of course I'm wondering
why Golden Gate was singled out over any other part of the county. I
did a little homework, and I haven't found that we had dozens handed
out in Naples Park or that we had dozens handed out down in the Manor
or anywhere else where the commercial vehicle difficulty is going on.
So I'm wondering what the attraction in the Gate was,
and I'm also wondering why we didn't follow through on board direction
to go ahead and set those workshops up and get -- get that rolling.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine --
before you answer, Mr. Cautero -- I was reading a letter over the
weekend about a truck with ladders on it. And if -- if -- if the
gentleman goes home and parks in his driveway, takes the ladders off
of his truck, he's okay. The ladder racks are okay, but it's the
ladders that are not okay. I'm --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And again, the --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- I'm lost.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, the whole point is
there seems to be gray area. There seems to be misunderstanding, and
I appreciate -- Miss Sullivan tried to put out a memo or something a
week or so ago to try to clarify some of that.
But my point is the board made what I thought was fairly
clear direction three weeks ago to have the public workshop so that
everybody was on the same page. And we haven't had those, and yet
we're having some sort of very aggressive red tag mania here. And I'm
just wondering where that came from. What's going on?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've heard of red tag sales but
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman and board members, the
direction was clear, and the staff is working on scheduling those
workshops, and we hope to have them by the middle part, certainly to
the latter part of June.
We received over three dozen complaints. And Linda can
correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of those complaints are
stemming back from letters that had been submitted to staff as well as
the board, were in the Golden Gate area.
In driving through the area and following up on those
complaints, the code enforcement investigators found other violations
that we are going to tell you today that are clear. They're not in
the -- in the gray areas.
The biggest area of concern that we tried to bring
forward to the board was not so much in the area of the commercial
vehicle. It's in the area of commercial equipment. And as
Commissioner Matthews brought out just a few moments ago, that's where
you start getting into some of the questionable areas. Is the rack
okay, or is it just the ladder that's okay? And that's where we were
trying to bring some amendments forward to the board, and that's what
we're going to try to talk about in the workshop.
In our opinion that is the most troublesome area, the
equipment. The ordinance is clear, although some of the wording needs
to be worded better. And that was part of our discussion with the
board that we had several weeks ago in terms of what vehicles are
allowed and what vehicles are not allowed in residential areas. The
box van and the step van has been the one that is most prevalent that
we're finding as well as the equipment.
A typical area where you have a problem that we would
like to talk to you about at the workshop, a business owner or an
employee of a business drives home with a typical four-by-four pickup
truck that has a rated load capacity of under one ton. However,
equipment is all over the truck. That's a violation in accordance
with the code today, and that's what we're enforcing.
But I will tell you that when the staff goes out and
enforces a code that we know is going to be brought forward to you in
some fashion for your review, we work with the property owners. They
have been issued notices of violations through the red tag process at
this point. And we work with them before we issue an official notice
of violation and order to correct the official citation that they're
ordered that they would have to sign for. So there's a lot of give
and take here knowing that the area is going to receive some work and
discussion.
In terms of the sweep that you mentioned earlier,
Commissioner Constantine, Greg Ossorio I believe is also standing
behind me, one of our investigators, and he can --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of your -- one of your
finest.
MR. CAUTERO: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of your finest.
MR. CAUTERO: I would agree. The sweep is more along
the lines of where you know that there have been problems in the past
and you go out and you're totally active -- you're totally being
proactive. This has been a combination of complaint and looking at
the next property over or property owner perhaps saying, well, you
tagged me. Two doors down there's a violation. You can't look the
other way. You have to go out and you tag it. And that's really what
happened. There's 68 cases that are open right now, but it's -- it's
one of those areas that we are working with the property owners, and
we want to give them every benefit of the doubt knowing that something
is going to come forward for this board to discuss at some point in
the next few months.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree wholeheartedly we
want to be proactive, and I do appreciate the work you're doing with
the code enforcement volunteers. I think there's been 3,600
violations responded to in -- in -- and corrected in one manner or
another in the past 18 months. So no criticism there intended. It
just -- it -- it seems as though the first -- our first up -- do we --
do we know when our -- do we have a scheduled date for those workshops
at this point?
MR. CAUTERO: No, we don't, but we -- we hope to have
them, like I said, in the middle of June to the latter part of June.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just with the -- this
particular issue being such a hot topic, it seems like that needs to
be a first step or certainly one of the first steps on the trip
instead of -- and again, I -- I agree with you. You can't ignore
specific complaints that come in. But it just seemed out of the
ordinary with the one particular topic being the hot item two or three
weeks ago and then boom, all of a sudden in a period of a couple days
we had 40 or 50 or you tell me 68 red tags handed out in that one --
in one area. And I needed to get some clarification.
I just wanted to make sure we are going to have that
public workshop in the very, very near future because I got a pile of
phone calls last week from folks who are saying, you know, gosh, wait
a minute. I thought we were going to try to work on this together.
And -- and I think we still are, but I need to hear that from you.
MR. CAUTERO: We will. We will have those soon. And
again, we were bombarded with complaints even before your -- your
workshop or public hearing I believe but certainly after. I know that
calls kept coming in. People were upset on both sides so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The gray area you pointed out is
the same problem that was pointed out to me with my wording that I
proposed is that, you know, if there's a roof rack and there's a
ladder or two ladders up there, most people don't find that awful.
It's when they stack PVC pipe and all -- you know, you start carrying
cargo up there that it becomes a problem. And so I know there were
some weaknesses with the wording that I proposed that were pointed out
to me, and you said it as the gray area. I mean, that's tough. I
have a rack on the top of my jeep. If I throw a ladder on that, am I
going to get cited in my own driveway? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yup.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, yeah, so, you know, and
-- and -- but yet it wouldn't be commercial. You know, maybe I'm
going to friend's house to, you know, take some palm fronds down out
of a tree but -- so, you know, that -- that is a gray area. That's
the tough one. And if we can get around that, more power to us.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Cautero.
Item #10D
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES TO THE CANVASSING BOARD - COMMISSIONER
HANCOCK APPOINTED AS FIRST ALTERNATE AND COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE APPOINTED
AS SECOND ALTERNATE
One more item here is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve
Commissioner Hancock as our representative on the canvassing board
this fall.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And Commissioner Mac'Kie as the
second alternate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So amended.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second to appoint Commissioner Hancock as first alternate,
Commissioner Mac'Kie as second alternate to the canvassing board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pretty clear it can't be you
three.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're all running.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Accepting by default are
Commissioners Hancock and Hac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
PUBLIC COHMENT
That's all. Public comments today.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I believe we -- we have one.
Ms. Leinweber, if you would, please, this is your opportunity -- she
has a question on the Immokalee Road canal. And I apologize if I
pronounced your name wrong.
MS. LEINWEBER: Leinweber's close enough. I'm Judy
Leinweber. On Immokalee Road in front of Mule Pens which is the Piper
property, the canal has been filled in for about three blocks'
length. I'd like to know is there some reason why the Cocohatchee
Canal has been filled in or if they're doing some special work over
there. I don't really understand.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't know why you're asking this
board. We -- we have no particular knowledge of that. You -- you
could probably save yourself some trouble if you would ask the staff
these questions. You know, we're at a loss to understand or to -- to
answer your question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, is there
somebody here who can assist her with that?
MR. DORRILL: I'm looking at Mr. Conrecode. He'd be the
only one.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record again, Tom Conrecode from
public works. I'd be happy to look into it. I know there's a number
of -- there's a project that's going on on the Piper parcel. The
water management district is currently working on expanding and
reexcavating that canal system further to the east. I don't know if
the particular incident that you're speaking of is part of that or
not. I'd be happy to have somebody look into it right away.
MS. LEINWEBER: Okay. Because there's about three
blocks that's been completely filled in. And if I don't know where to
ask, how can I ask the right party?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, all you -- all you need to do
MS. LEINWEBER: You know, I just want it to be directed
to --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You asked me a question. If you'd
like for me to answer it, I will. MS. LEINWEBER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All you have to do is pick up the
phone and call the -- one of the county departments that -- that would
seem to be the correct one to give you the information that -- for the
particular subject that you want.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or pick up the phone and call
me, and I'll direct you to that.
MS. LEINWEBER: Thank you very much. I appreciate
that.
MR. DORRILL: We -- we have one additional today, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Perkins.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're excavating the golf
course there at Piper's Pasture. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hi, A1.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Bonita Bay golf course is --
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners. A1 Perkins,
Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. Over
this past weekend here if you people haven't paid attention to your
constitution, you better wake up. You're going to lose this country.
Constitutions are very important, but that's not what I'm going to
speak here this morning. Memories all pop up. Hey, do you guys
remember the faces?
Friday, this past Friday, we had a little history. Now,
I've been advocating to this board in the past about getting our TV
system and the monitors and the facility in place in this courthouse
area, in this building, in the commission meeting room, and even in
the courthouse to provide the information to the rest of the county
who cannot make it here to participate.
This is gonna be done without any cost to the taxpayer
because of the franchise fees that are now going to the state of
Florida. We have the ability to get the information out unless the
politicians and some of the organizations do not want you to know.
Information is where I'm pushing. It works both ways.
We have the option of transmitting this all over the county with input
instantly. Congress did it last Friday with conference TV throughout
the country, with the Internet, with the whole five yards. It's a --
readily available. If you can get in touch with the Congress, they'll
take and put you wise to the whole thing. Point being we can get the
information out of here to Immokalee and to Everglades. We can also
take and get Immokalee and Everglades' input right into this office at
the same time. It's being done. You'll be able to do this to your
congressman as it is in session, something new.
Getting the information is very important. Something
else on information. We have at our libraries the present time fax
machines that are -- should be made available to the public who do not
want to invest into a particular fax machine for a price so they take
and fax their information to wherever they want to do it. It's
there. It's laying idle most of the time. We're paying for it. Why
not make it available to the citizens.
By the way, along with that, I want to take and I'm
going to toot the toot on this. Golden Gate library has been very,
very participated and cooperative and helpful on any of the ridiculous
questions that I ask, and I ask ridiculous questions, and they dig for
the information for me. Those people -- how many people do you know
that you don't use your library to its fullest? Do you know that you
can go in and bring up or ask for a question on the telephone book for
Pensacola and it's available? No. Do you know the representatives up
in the panhandle? No. The information's there. Just ask. I can get
it out of Golden Gate just like that. Those people are wonderful out
there.
Other than that, I'm driving for participation as far as
getting the information out to the entire county. We have the means.
We have the ability. Mr. Dotrill knows all about this stuff, and I'm
going to get -- try to get everybody at home to call your employees to
put pressure on them to make this happen on behalf of the entire
people. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That concludes the morning part of
our agenda. We'll take a five-minute break and come back for the
afternoon portion of our agenda.
(A short break was held.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 96-24, RE PETITION PUD-96-4, ALAN D. REYNOLDS OF WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING THE RELATED GROUP OF
FLORIDA, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "PUD" FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R.
896) AND FUTURE LIVINGSTON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE WEST OF
INTERSTATE 75, CONSISTING OF 39.5 ACRES - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll
reconvene the county commission meeting at this time. Thank you.
We're ready now for our afternoon agenda. The first item is item
12(B)(1), petition PUD-96-4. Mr. Milk?
MR. MILK: Good morning, commissioners. For the record,
my name is Bryan Milk. I'm presenting petition PUD-96-4. The
petitioner is requesting a rezoning from "A" agricultural to PUD,
planned unit development, for a 276-unit multi-family rental complex
at the southwest intersection of Pine Ridge Road and proposed
Livingston Road. The subject property is approximately 39.5 acres in
size. It is undeveloped at this point and is heavily vegetated.
The subject parcel lays -- lies within the urban
designated area and within the density band. Proposed density for the
subject property is seven units per acre.
The subject property provides for two- and three-story
multi-family buildings, a clubhouse, pool, and special treatment
preserve area, water management facilities, a proposed ingress and
egress to Pine Ridge Road with a median cut, and two future
interconnects with the Livingston Woods Road right-of-way.
Property to the west and to the south is the Kensington
Park PUD. The subject property is 369 acres in size. It was approved
for 600 dwelling units. The overall gross density is at 1.6 units per
the acre.
Approved subject to the perimeter of the project's
western and southern property lines in tract D and Lancaster Square
are 2 -- 2-story condominiums at 9.8 units per the acre.
Immediately to the east of Livingston Road is the John
Ebert Golf Academy currently under construction. Immediately to the
north of Pine Ridge Road is the Pine Ridge Nursery under construction,
an undeveloped parcel, the Naples Progressive Gymnastics Camp, and the
Community School. To the northeast is the Livingston Woods
residential community and undeveloped Cypress Glen at seven units per
the acre.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bryan, what was that -- the
last item again? I'm sorry. I just didn't hear you.
MR. MILK: That was the Cypress Glen PUD at seven units
per the acre.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. MILK: During the public hearing, Mr. Brugger, the
trustee of the Kensington Park PUD, had some concerns about the
density and the adjoining land uses proposed with the Related Group.
In comparison, the subject petition provides for three-story
buildings. Kensington Park provides for three-story buildings, the
difference being -- is there's a 30-foot height maximum in Kensington
Park, 30-foot maximum heighth in the proposed Related Group.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Is that a difference
you said?
MR. MILK: Well, it's three-story buildings. One's 30
feet. One's 35 feet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thirty-five. I'm sorry. I
thought you said 30.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which one has 35?
MR. MILK: The Related Group, the proposed petition.
The setbacks are proposed at 30 feet from the property
line. At Kensington it's 20 feet. The buffers are provided as set
forth in the Land Development Code as is all the internal open space,
water management, and ingress-egress points for the county roadways.
Pine Ridge Road is currently operating at a level of
service B. It's a 4-lane arterial roadway, has approximately 36,000
trips per day. The proposed project is anticipated to provide an
additional 1,800 average annual daily trips to the roadway network
over a 24-hour period. This will not result in a 5 percent reduction
in the level of service C.
So overall, the roadway is at level of service B. It is
planned to be six laned by the year 2001. That would further increase
its level of service.
Water and sewer are provided to the site. The proposed
project is provided -- has the ability to provide water and sewer
throughout its particular project. It will not be phase. It will be
developed all at one time.
As I mentioned before, Mr. Brugger, the trustee of
Kensington, had some questions regarding the density next to the
Kensington Park property line, had some questions in regards to water
management and water-related problems that he would or has foreseen in
the past and some objections to the heights of the building and the
buffer that is adjacent and contiguous to Kensington Park itself.
The planning commission recommended approval seven to
zero at the Hay 2 hearing. There was one additional letter I received
this week from a Mr. -- a Mr. Donna Price in the Lancaster --
Lancaster multi-family complex. I'd like to answer any questions at
this time if I can.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment before we go
too far. Mr. Chairman, I've received a number of letters on this, a
couple of phone calls, and also had a visit from people on both sides
of the issue. And as the law requires, I assure you I'll base my
decision on that information that's part of the record today. But I
would like to introduce those letters. I want to make sure part of
the record is all those letters that have come to the board, and I'll
give that to our record taker.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you for that. And I would
like to make the same statement. I have had contact by both sides of
this issue, but I will make my decision based on what I hear today in
this hearing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same for me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Likewise.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Questions from the board?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a couple.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Milk, when -- when -- when I
first looked at this plan, I had a little bit of concern about access
and the fact that this is a rental -- rental unit development aimed at
I -- what I believe to be people who will be coming and going to
regular-type jobs. And I'm -- with Pine Ridge Road heavily traveled
the way it is now, especially in those to-and-from-work hours, this is
going to add several hundred trips -- MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- in -- in that same time frame
going to and coming from --
MR. MILK: Peak hour, correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On peak hour driving. And one
of my questions was what do we do about this access on to Pine Ridge?
And I see it's got access off of future Livingston Road as well. And
I -- I guess I'm asking can we make the Livingston Road access the
primary access as opposed to Pine Ridge.
MR. MILK: I think what's gonna --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, please, we're
going to ask you to refrain from your comments like that. If you --
if you insist on doing that, we'll have to clear the room. We are
going to hear this public hearing without your interruptions. Okay.
Thank you.
MR. MILK: What happens and what was looked at during
this review is the -- is the primary access is from Pine Ridge Road
with a right turn, right in, right out, possible left out depending on
the geometry of the median opening there. We also asked the developer
to provide some secondary access to Livingston Road just in case
people were traveling south on that particular roadway. It would save
going to the signal there and traveling further south. So the primary
access being proposed here is off of Pine Ridge Road.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So is -- is it felt that there
will be enough of a traffic break created by the light at Livingston
Road and the light at Kensington entrance to provide an adequate break
for -- for these citizens to get and in and out and go about their
travel?
MR. MILK: The -- with the access management plan and
the decel. lanes and the excel. lanes for the project proposed and
with some median modifications, yes. That's why we also asked for the
Livingston Road secondary access when that's completed.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Couple other questions,
and then I'll -- I'll sit back and listen. The density for this
project is what?
MR. MILK: The density -- the gross density of the
project is seven units per the gross acre over the entirety of the
thirty-nine and a half. On the buildable area of the property which
is 16.9 acres, it's approximately 16 dwelling units per the acre net.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did -- can I -- can I ask
a question along that --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I'm -- yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How -- how does that compare
with Kensington? For example, I know that --
MR. MILK: Kensington is at a overall gross density of
1.6 units across the 369 acres. In the tracts immediately contiguous
to the property's western and southern property lines, it's at 9.8
units per acre its net which is contiguous to the subject property
along that area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 9.8 and the 7 are fairly
consistent, and I'm wondering -- you mentioned the golf academy that's
currently under construction. I assume at some point -- we don't
know, and -- and I don't expect you to tell us what's going to happen
in the future. But I assume at some point that will be developed into
a stronger use than a driving range over there. And do we have any
idea what's allowable over there now? I'm wondering how the
transition goes as you go east on that roadway.
MR. MILK: The subject property is zoned agricultural
and had a conditional use for the golf academy, golf driving range
school.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that would come back to
the board if someone -- MR. MILK: That's -- it would come back to the board for
a fezone, correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, was any part of
Kensington within the density band extending from the activity
center?
MR. MILK: It currently all is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All of Kensington is?
MR. MILK: Approximately 90 percent of it, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: The density band at this point is at the
intersection of Pine Ridge and Airport Road, extends a mile out to the
proposed Livingston Road corridor.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The next question or
statement I have is I note that there are two accesses to what is
designated as a future Livingston Road. If there is to be a
Livingston Road and there is to be access, in my opinion it needs to
be extremely limited beyond the two that are shown here. If there's
to be any access, I would prefer right in, right out only to
Livingston Road because one of the discussions we've had is as
Livingston Road comes forward, when it comes forward, that this should
be a limited access facility so that we can avoid the expansive
six-lane road that -- that is currently -- well, used to be on the
books until the HPO meeting last week.
So if -- if we could do that, that would be a preference
of mine. So if my colleagues can take a note of that, I'll be, if
this project moves ahead, requesting that that be at least one
change.
MR. MILK: I think the point with the two proposed
access points is at some point, like I said, in the future when Ebert
Golf Academy goes out for a fezone and the access management becomes a
real factor here, there is one access that's proposed at X amount of
feet down from the intersection would only be -- like you say, require
right in, right out, decel. lanes to that particular facility.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
MR. MILK: I just wanted to put it on the record that
there may be future access to Livingston. And depending on the access
management plan, surrounding land uses in that area, median cuts,
we're going to work with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the concerns when --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you okay? One of the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Besides my imminent demise.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the concerns in
addition to Commissioner to Hac'Kie's health is --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- when -- when we hear the
numbers -- I hear 7, but I hear the -- the 16 as well. And it -- you
know, I've been through this often enough to kind of understand the
difference. I'm not sure everyone does, and I'm wondering maybe you
can describe that via -- there's a comment in here on open space. And
I'm trying to understand project wide what does that leave -- do we
have a bunch of stuff packed in there on one site, or do we leave
quite a bit of open space on this project? Is it somewhere in
between? How's it compare to other projects?
MR. MILK: Any project of this size requires 60 percent
open space on the project. So sixty percent of the thirty-nine and a
half acres has to be designated as open space. That's where you cut
back on approximately half the buildable area because that's
approximately 20 acres plus or minus.
So what happens is you have a buildable area within the
overall whole that eliminates the open space requirement for your
buffers, your wetland preserve, your storm water management, your FP&L
easement, your internal lake systems for water management, and future
Livingston Road right-of-way.
Also what you're going to have internal to the project
is probably another 40 percent open space because of the landscaping
requirements, internal drainage, sods, the amenities. So what happens
because the project is what it is, it -- it requires 60 percent open
space.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is roughly 24 acres.
MR. MILK: That's correct. In that 24 acres there's a
lot of things happening is what I'm trying to say. And that's because
there's a wetland over here that needs to be preserved. There's some
internal lakes. You have the water management along the Livingston
Road corridor and then the FP&L easement.
With all those concerns, the site plan has indicated a
developable portion of 16.9 acres which is roughly 16 units per the
acre net in that particular upland area habitat. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Commissioner
Constantine, Mr. Milk, does this project in itself substantially
advance the need for Livingston Road? MR. MILK: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, is this -- are we talking
tiny drop in a big bucket? Give me an idea there.
MR. MILK: The first thing is is Pine Ridge Road will be
6 laned by the year 2001. It's currently operational level of service
B. This project does not even affect it 5 percent of the level of
service C under policy 5.1 of the GHP. It's not necessary at this
point for this particular fezone. We have enough capacity at its
present carrying capacity of Pine Ridge Road for the project.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the capacity on Pine
Ridge is sufficient for this project. It doesn't generate the need
for any additional roadways.
MR. MILK: That's correct. It's a stand-alone item with
Pine Ridge.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So help me, Mr. Milk. You're
telling us then that if Livingston Road is never built, this
development will be able to stand on its own.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Anything else?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may have more, but let's go
ahead and -- if there are public speakers and we'll -- MR. DORRILL: I don't know if the petitioner has any
comments, but we do have about four public speakers. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson from Young, van Assenderp, and
Varnadoe on behalf of the petitioner. I'd like to pass out some
photographs of a similar project in Broward County.
I'd like to introduce Mr. Ed Dering, a representative
from the Related Group; Mr. Alan Reynolds and Emilio Roboff (phonetic)
from Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek.
We'd like to commit on the record with respect to those
pictures that we will build the same high quality buildings with a
stucco exterior, the tile roofs, and the stepped-roof design. And we
will employ similar architectural details.
This is planned to be a high-end market rate rental
development. The particular niche that this project is aimed at are
young professionals who use their home as an office and families who
are moving to town new and want to rent in a development where
children are welcome and to become familiar with the area before they
buy a home. Much of the existing rental market in this community is
either affordable housing or individual condominiums for rent in
complexes where children are not welcome with open arms.
The project density of 7 units per acre is consistent
with the comprehensive plan and the density standards of section
2.2.20.3.1 of your Land Development Code. The petitioner has agreed
to reserve up to 120 feet along the entire eastern property line for a
future Livingston Road right-of-way even though the county
transportation department is not certain how much right-of-way they
may actually need to construct the road if there is indeed a road.
And let me emphasize that we are not here to take a
position on whether the extension or widening of Livingston Road is
desirable or not. We were asked to simply reserve right-of-way for a
road corridor that is shown in the comprehensive plan. Insofar as
whether Livingston Road ought to be extended and widened, we do not
have a dog in that fight.
We are in agreement with all stipulations, and I would
like to ask Mr. Reynolds to address the planning considerations that
he employed on this site.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question, Mr.
Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize this isn't
something we can base our decision on, but you had mentioned this to
me when you spoke to me before about this, and that is the approximate
rate at which these units will be rented out at. I ask that for
public information as much as anything.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. The typical two-bedroom which will
be the predominant feature here will be nine to nine fifty per month
for a two-bedroom unit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I just -- again, I
realize that's not something we can base our decision on but just the
point that I'm guessing that this is --
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not affordable.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, right. Not affordable
housing.
MR. ANDERSON: Right, exactly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not affordable for me.
MR. ANDERSON: I appreciate your -- your asking that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First time I ever heard an
unaffordable complex being an asset but -- MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. Mr. Chairman,
commissioners, my name is Alan Reynolds, project planner.
If I might, I want to roll back the clock about five or
six years to the time when we were discussing our present
comprehensive plan and identify for you a concern I raised during
those hearings. And that is that our comprehensive plan as it exists
today has become very restrictive in the locations that you can have a
freestanding community other than a golf course community where you
can achieve what I consider to be from a planning point of view even
moderate densities of affordable housing -- or of multi-family housing
let alone higher densities of those kinds of uses.
And what we've done is we have a plan now that -- that
really if you think about the location where you can put what I would
consider to be a moderately density project, it is the area east of
Airport Road and west of 1-75. I think if you -- if you look at the
number of projects that have come in as a freestanding use in the past
five years that did not qualify for an affordable housing density
bonus, I think that observation will be borne out. But there are very
few locations that are suitable for this kind of a project.
What is the project? It's an upscale project. It is a
low density apartment complex, 276 units. It is designed around, as
you can see on the plan, the typical kinds of amenities that you have
in an upscale project: A recreational complex, lakes, a wetland
preserve, private internal roadways.
This location -- and I drive by it every single day on
my way to work, so I'm pretty intimately familiar with it -- I would
consider it to be the premiere location in Collier County for an
upscale apartment project. You're within a mile of the YHCA. You're
across the street from Naples Progressive Gymnastics, the Community
School. You're within a mile of two activity centers, a community
center and an interchange center. You're located on one of the
primary east-west road corridors that serve our employment centers.
You'd be very hard pressed, I think, to find a location that is more
ideal than this for the type of use we're talking about. It's located
on the future intersection of two arterial roadways.
Once again, think about the corridor between Airport and
1-75 and envision the number of sites that have direct access to an
arterial in that corridor. So we're within the urban area, but we
fall outside of the traffic congestion zone.
As Bryan mentioned, we have designed the project with
primary access to Pine Ridge Road. And we did all of the traffic
analysis on the premise that Pine Ridge Road would continue to be the
sole point of access. That's a conservative analysis, but that was
the way we approached this particular project. So his comments about
the project being able to stand on its own without Livingston Road are
-- are a correct statement.
Commissioner Matthews also raised a access management
question that was looked at specifically, and that is the location of
the access which meets the access management guidelines is also
between two traffic signals which creates the platooning effect that
you get with those signals that allows for the opening for vehicles to
make a safe exiting movement in the morning.
The usable open space calculations that were reviewed
and you can see on the plan have not taken into account a substantial
amount of the green space that we'll have within the building areas.
So we will, in fact, exceed that 60 percent usable open space.
I anticipate you're going to hear some comments from an
op -- an opponent of this project with respect to storm water
management. These issues were raised at the planning commission. Let
me just -- without getting into a lot of technical details which we
can address if you'd like us to, there is no reason for a concern
about the development of this project being able to comply with all of
the adopted county standards for storm water management.
In fact, I'll point out that this location is in a
restricted discharge zone which has a lesser discharge allowed than
what would normally be allowed if it was not in such a zone.
The practical effect of that is that in the
post-development condition, the rate of run-off from this project is
less than predevelopment. Usually you hear petitioners identify that
you have a comparable rate.
So just be assured that there are adequate storm water
facilities that can be designed and are being designed in this project
to accommodate storm water issues.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds -- I'm sorry -- just
to clarify that point, you're saying you have to hold more water on
this site than you would outside of this -- this is the first I've
heard of this reduced discharge zone. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have to hold more water on
site than as is typical for even a 25-year 3-day storm event?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. It has a -- it has a
limitation on the rate of post-development discharge which is normally
set at the predevelopment rates. In this case it's limited to a -- to
a lower threshold than that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- by county ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's causing that? What's
causing that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Lack of outfall.
MR. REYNOLDS: What's causing that has been the
development and lack of positive outfalls to particular projects which
is -- is a process that is ongoing right now. In fact, the Livingston
Road corridor is going to provide one of the north-south outfalls.
Once again, we designed this project's storm water management to be
able to be sufficient without those county-wide improvements.
You've heard a lot of discussion about density. If I
may, let me give you a comparative sheet.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. REYNOLDS: What I've done in this table is I have
looked in an area that's approximately three- or four-mile radius
around the subject property, and I've identified all of the existing
or approved multi-family and apartment projects that I could -- that I
could identify that are predominantly freestanding as opposed to part
of a larger planned community.
And what you'll see there as you go down the list is
projects starting with a -- one that was recently in the paper that
will sit on the future intersection, southeast intersection, of
Vanderbilt and Livingston Road not named at the present that has an
almost identical situation to this one in terms of access and location
on two arterials, same geographic location, and adjacent to a low
density single-family project, 18 units per acre.
As you go down that list, what you will see is that when
you get to Arbour Lake which is at 11 units per acre which is the --
what I would consider to be the threshold of the typical densities for
apartment projects, you have a fairly steep drop-off to the River
Reach project, our project, the Related Group, and Cypress Glen across
the street at 7 units per acre. You can also see the distance to the
active centers of all of these -- these projects.
The purpose of this handout is just to teenforce that --
that you cannot from a land use point of view compare a freestanding
project of this type to a golf course community and come out with any
kind of a logical basis of comparison.
What you've got to do is look at the product type that's
within the project and compare it to similar types of projects for
density comparison. When you do that you see that my assertion that
what we are is at the low end of the density spectrum for a
freestanding apartment project as borne out by the -- by analysis of
what's happened in the market.
I think what I'd like to do at this point is reserve a
few minutes after you've had public comment if we can address any
questions that come up or address any questions that you might have
that we have not already covered.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Questions from the board?
If not, let's go to the public speakers, Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Of which there are four. Mr. Seigfreid,
if you would, please, sir. And then, Mr. Brugger, you'll be next.
MR. SEIGFREID: May it please the commission. My name
is Jerry Seigfreid, and I'm here on behalf of residents of Wyndemere
which I'm sure you know the location of because of the Livingston
Road. At this point in time so that the commission will know the
interest of our members in this matter and in the matter of the
Livingston Road, I'd like to ask your observance of those members that
are here from Wyndemere. I'd like to ask them to stand, please.
MR. DORRILL: Tee times are available at the club.
MR. SEIGFREID: I would -- I would point out to the
commission that this is the summer months, and these are the residents
that are here to speak to this issue through me regarding these
projects.
Now, first of all, we're quite concerned about the
density in the area that is proposed for construction. And I notice
that the speakers have ducked the question of Livingston Road.
They've said this will have no effect on Livingston Road.
It's our position at this time -- and it's not timely I
know because this is not an issue that's directly before the
commission but only indirectly, and you've heard much mention of
Livingston Road as we've progressed. It is indirectly before the
commission because the proponents of this project don't want to
associate themselves with Livingston Road at all and the density that
this will cause if it is constructed.
Now, we feel that this whole area as was pointed out was
designated as a -- an area where there would be a limited number of
people living. And what is happening here is a request to do
something for people who don't live here now rather than a request for
people who live here now, the residents who will be concerned with
such density and the type project this is.
So I would ask the commission's consideration of the
fact that we are the established people in the area. And as has been
mentioned several time in the press and by other groups, we don't want
to bring the east coast to the west coast. We don't want this
high-rise type situation occurring in our area. And we would ask your
consideration on this. And also we will be back to talk with you
about why we believe Livingston Road is neither needed nor necessary
and that it should not be constructed at all.
Now, there will be some people here from Briarwood also
who are greatly affected by this road, and there will be some people
here from Kensington as you've noted. I'll entertain any questions
that the commission might have.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Seigfreid.
MR. SEIGFREID: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Brugger. Then Mr. Bruggemeyer.
MR. BRUGGER: Morning, commissioners. My name is John
Brugger representing Kensington. I want to point out several things.
I'm not opposed to residential development in this area, but we're
looking at one little isolated site here when we have to look at the
whole corridor in the area, the undeveloped I believe it's section 18
adjoining to the east, which is also within the density band and what
may be built in there and comments that have come from the commission
with regard to past fezones up in this area.
When Kensington came in for its rezoning approval, we
sought 790 units on our 369 acres which would have been a net density
of 2.14. The commissioners at that time felt that it just impacted
the area too much, created additional burdens on county
infrastructure, and requested that we reduce the density to 600 units
per acre.
The same thing occurred at the time that I rezoned
Wilshire Lake, another development I'm involved with, several miles to
the north on Vanderbilt Beach Road. We requested 2.1 units an acre.
Again, at the insistence of the county commissioners all before this
board, it was reduced to 1.9 units an acre.
In Wilshire Lakes we -- the ULDC allowed four units an
acre. Here we're in a density band that allows seven. And we're at
1.62 now in Kensington. Wyndemere is constructed at 1.3 units an
acre. And we're talking about not just this site but the adjoining
section 18 next door which is pretty much undeveloped. There's a few
residential horse ranches in there. But other than that, it's -- it's
an area for future development. And we need to look at the impact
that all this higher density is going to cause on the area.
I'd -- their argument is that we've got nine units per
acre adjoining. Well, yes, when we put in just the condominium
footprint underneath the condominiums that happen to be adjoining
there, it is nine units an acre. But they're looking at a parcel of
land that's about one-third taken up by power lines which nobody can
build under anyway. They've got -- maybe 20 percent of their land is
wetlands, and they're trying to put the whole density on the remainder
of the unit which results in -- on the remainder of the land; results
in 16 units per acre which I think is totally unreasonable.
I believe something -- we were told that we should limit
ours to less than half of the -- the 4 that I was requesting or -- or
could have requested at Wilshire and to 1.6 when I could have sought 7
at Kensington. And again, the concern was bringing the east coast to
the west coast as somebody said. Do we need all this high density
construction when the low density seems to be doing just as -- just as
well out there?
An additional point, when Kensington received --
received its zoning approval, we were required by the commission to
limit our structures to a single story down where it abutted Grey
Oaks. On property adjacent to the Grey Oaks development, the
commission imposed on us a restriction of -- of single-story
development so that it was compatible with the adjoining land use
because they had single story adjoining.
I would suggest that the same thing, if -- if there is
any zoning approval given here that is acceptable to the parties that
it be limited to 2 stories because we're limited -- we've got ours
constructed there at 2 stories or 30 feet with no under-story
parking.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that a limitation, Mr.
Brugger, or just -- MR. BRUGGER: That's a limitation in our PUD, that we've
got in our PUD that was imposed by the commission.
I do have a lot of problems with water management
there. I know Mr. Reynolds has his own opinion as to whether or not
the site will drain properly or will hold water. I know last summer
was unusual. But the whole adjoining section of property owners and
-- and the people to the north of Pine Ridge Road are under almost a
foot of water for much of the time because there is no outside
drainage available to this.
Kensington happened to purchase its own off-site
drainage, three quarter of a mile canal to the D-2 canal over along
1-75. And, therefore, we have adequate drainage. And Wyndemere has
their own because they abut 1-75. But these other developments in
this area until Livingston Road or some drainage facility is -- is
constructed along there, there's no place for the water run-off to
Occur.
I guess that's basically my summary. I just think that
the project is way too dense and -- and that we need to limit the
growth in this area.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brugger, I want to clarify
Kensington's altruism. When you requested 790 units and reduced them
at board direction, wasn't your original request for 790 units in --
not counting maid and guest quarters allowed for each single-family
home? I think you'll find if you look at the record the answer's
yes.
MR. BRUGGER: We have a limitation. I asked for a
limitation on the number of maid and guest quarters, yes, that we
could have.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. And you weren't counting
them in your density; is that correct?
MR. BRUGGER: They are not counted in density, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. So you reduced to 600
and kept the maid and guest quarters in; correct? MR. BRUGGER: Correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bruggemeyer and then Mr. Domzall.
MR. BRUGGEHEYER: My name is A1 Bruggemeyer. I'm a
resident of Wyndemere. I have been a taxpayer in this county for 30
years. How time does go.
Two years ago I moved off of Marco Island into
Wyndemere. When I did so, unlike some my neighbors, I knew of the
possibility of Livingston Road being extended. It goes back a long
way.
But I did not know and was a little shocked to read my
friend George Archibald's comment about a six-lane super highway that
will be the primary movement place from Lee County down here, a thing
that will saw off the entire west section of our community.
To the extent that we approve more and more multiple
family places with access to Livingston Road, the more we push towards
that super highway that George spoke about. Perhaps it was Naples
Daily News misquoting him. They have been known, I think, to do that
on occasion. As a former elected official, I know it very well.
But I think each one of these is going to have to take
into account the impact on what one does with Livingston Road. Are we
going to get so many bodies there we're going to have to have it? I
think most of us would prefer not to have it. But if we do have to
have it, I would hope that you would look to mitigate the impact on
the communities that are already existing or already tax paying and
those of us who have been around a long time. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Domzall. He'll be your final speaker,
Mr. Chairman.
MR. DOHZALL: I'm Raphael Domzall, and I'm from the
Briarwood development. And we have a section of people here
represented this morning. And our concern is also indirectly relative
to the new project and its density. But most of all we oppose the
development of Livingston Road in any fashion as a super highway.
We would like to save taxpayers a good deal of money
because we already have a feeder road along Briarwood that serves the
community quite well. It's called Commercial Boulevard. In eight and
a half years of using Commercial Boulevard, I have never been in a
traffic jam. It flows quite freely, and it does handle the panel
trucks and pickups, et cetera, the trucks through the area.
We see no need for a big highway coming anyplace into
this area for service. And I understand the engineering plans are
being undertaken right now to show no need for such development of
Livingston Road all the way to Bonita Springs.
In fact, if you look at the maps very carefully,
Livingston Road is only six-tenths of a mile from 1-75 which it would
parallel from Immokalee Road north. It seems ridiculous to have only
four lanes on 1-75 which could be eight laned and put in another super
highway.
So we would like you to give that consideration, and
maybe you would see fit at this time to put on record the no need to
super express Wyndemere and watch the density of development. Thank
you very much.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, a couple of
thoughts, and some of you may not be aware through the leadership of
Commissioner Hancock last Friday at the HPO meeting, the board said --
we made a commitment at no point to six lane that. That will be, as
of last Friday, a maximum of four lanes but also -- and I don't have
all the information yet, and I'm not prepared to go into great detail
yet. But considering you're all here, we'll share what we do know
with you.
We're doing -- I'm working with a private group in doing
some studies that will contrast some with our public works
department's studies and may show a much less need for the section
either on -- by Briarwood or up by Wyndemere. And that will probably
be about two or three weeks from now. Keep your eyes peeled for the
newspaper because I think we'll -- we'll have that out shortly. But,
Commissioner Hancock, you might want to explain what you did on Friday
as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And because of the sunshine law
and our inability to sit in a room and talk about who's doing what, we
rely sometimes on the grapevine. And I heard -- I heard word of what
Commissioner Constantine's working on, and he has my full support in
pursuing that as obviously we need to make sure the need is there
before we begin looking at other measures.
So while he and others are focusing on the need, at the
HPO meeting last Friday at my suggestion -- and I thank the board for
your -- your vote of confidence and participation -- we took our needs
analysis for the years 2000 and 2010 which showed this as a 6-lane
facility by 2010 and eliminated it down to a 4-lane facility. Our
plans now show in the year 2000 and 2010 this is a maximum 4-lane
facility if needed.
So we're kind of preparing on both ends. One, is there
a need. And if there is, let's limit it, mitigate it, and -- and do
the best we can for the folks who are living along this corridor.
We have two issues -- one issue before us today which
has mushroomed in to two. The single issue is that of a fezone of a
piece of property. And many of you here feel that any unit added in
Collier County pushes the need for Livingston Road further.
whether this was four units or seven units or ten units an acre, I
imagine your feelings are going to be much the same. The mere
development of any parcel along Livingston Road pushes the need
further and should be denied.
Although I understand that feeling, there's a little
problem with the law in that in that you can't tell someone they
simply can't use their land. So the question is is what being
requested within the confines of what is reasonable and prudent based
on our -- our Growth Management Plan that's been adopted for many
years.
And so I'm trying to -- to separate the two issues, and
I know in your mind they can't be because they're -- you've melded
them together. But whether this parcel's developed or one two miles
north is developed, at some point it's a unit added in the county.
And we can't tell people they can't build at all. But we can be a
little more reasonable in our approach.
And -- and I think that's the focus the board's going to
take in reviewing this project today. And again, I -- I wanted to
point out I understand the concern of linking the two. But we're
working independently, and we will have this item -- as Mr. Seigfreid
mentioned, I imagine there will be a significant discussion of this
item as Commissioner Constantine wraps up his work. And then if what
I've been working on needs to come into play, we'll handle it at that
point.
But just, I guess, as a statement of understanding on
why you're here and your support is tremendous. It goes beyond what's
in front of us today as our mailbox and phones both know. And I'd
like to thank you for your involvement. I'll turn it back to the
chairman after that lengthy --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- statement.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll -- we'll get back to the
issue at hand. Does any of the board members have questions of the
presenter?
If not, we'll close the public hearing. Pleasure of the
board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one question. And
Commissioner Hancock just said we do have the legal restriction here
as to when we're dealing with land use issues. If we turn something
down, it has to be based within certain criteria. And Mr. Weigel can
help us with that. But we've heard the petitioner's -- petitioner's
folks. And I -- and I -- to tell you the truth, I think, Bryan, you
said it as well. But I need to hear it again from our staff as far as
the impacts on the proposed Livingston Road corridor. We're -- we're
being told they really don't exist. This is a Pine Ridge issue, but I
need that reiterated on the record.
MR. MILK: Historically the project was proposed with
one access point. That was on Pine Ridge Road. It was proposed with
a right in, right out, and a left turn facility and the median cut.
All of the petitioner's traffic analysis dealt with Pine Ridge only.
Because there's policies in the Growth Management Plan
with interconnects and access management plans and turn lane
movements, it was a suggestion of staff to provide a future access to
Livingston Road when it was completed to somewhat help the flow of
traffic through that corridor.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if and when Livingston
Road was built, that was at county's request. MR. MILK: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was not something the
builder requested, and that was -- MR. MILK: Correct.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- just meeting county
policy. That's not --
MR. MILK: That's absolutely correct.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. MILK: And it was a stand-alone off the traffic
level of service B, existing traffic on Pine Ridge Road, and the
petitioner's emphasis of using Pine Ridge Road as a major access point
for this project.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for the petitioner. I
notice that -- I believe if I'm looking at the plat correctly, in
Kensington it looks like that's a single-family tract, but the --
there's a perimeter road between -- or going to be a perimeter road
between the front of the homes and your property line. Does that jibe
with what your research indicates?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the plan for the
buildings closest to where those single-family homes are? Is there
any additional heighth limitation or setback? Or I guess what we're
all -- one of the compatibility questions is how do we transition from
that single family to your project and do it smoothly. I know that
perimeter road helps. But what other considerations have been looked
at to do that?
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Commissioner Hancock. Let me
give you a handout that may help to iljustrate that -- that question,
and then I'll --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can he hand things out not on the
microphone? Don't argue with the stenographer. That always gets you
in trouble.
Okay. So that is multi-family.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: The -- the land use adjacent to our
project is a multi-family land use, and they have planned it with a
interner -- internal perimeter road along our property line. The --
the closest building that they have to our property line with their
configuration is 125 feet away. That's the closest habitable
structure, and that's a multi-family structure that orients to the
west and to the south internal to the project.
I -- I -- I do want to clarify something that was stated
by Mr. Brugger I believe on the record that I'm not sure is consistent
with our information. The Kensington PUD allows their multi-family
structures to be three habitable stories in the PUD. So that would be
three stories over parking. The buildings that they have -- excuse me
-- have built are two-story buildings, but their PUD allows three
habitable stories over -- over parking which is greater, more
permissive, than what our PUD allows.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which I think he answered in
response to my question about whether or not that was just what he had
constructed or what is permitted under the PUD. MR. REYNOLDS: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you're not -- you're asking
for three but not three over parking.
MR. REYNOLDS: We -- our buildings will be two and three
stories. Maximum height will be 35 feet which is the same height
limitation as you have in your single-family zoning districts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you anticipate in the layout
of this development that the rear of the buildings will face the
perimeter wall on the west?
MR. REYNOLDS: In -- in our layout we're going to use a
technique that's very similar to what they have used in -- in
Kensington which is to orient the units internally to the lakes and
amenities areas, yes.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So the rear will be facing the
back of the -- the back of the lot.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hiss Student, you seem to have
something here to add.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Harjorie
Student, assistant county attorney for the record. I just wanted to
clarify the -- it was mentioned what the law was regarding the
rezoning. It's a quasi-judicial hearing, as you're aware. And the
burden first belongs to the petitioner to show consistency with our
comprehensive plan. And then the burden shifts to the local
government based upon evidence presented if there's a good public
health, safety, welfare reason which in my estimation would include
the criteria for a fezone not to grant and -- grant the request.
that -- I just wanted to clarify that for the record. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- if this project were going
to kick Livingston Road into a reality even though it would be -- that
would be a related issue, then I think this board would have due
reason to refuse the fezone all together.
Based on what Mr. Milk has said that this project is
based solely on Pine Ridge Road and in no way impacts the decision
whether to build Livingston Road or not or whether to four lane or six
lane, that goes away.
The -- the balance is -- is compatibility with adjacent
development and other fezones this board has granted in the immediate
area that are either similar, less intensive or more intensive. And
what I recall -- and it was probably four years ago that Cypress Glen
was granted -- actually they've even reduced their density to seven
units an acre. They were at higher than seven and reduced their
density to seven to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
The fact that part of that is right across the street
from this development makes a very good compatibility argument. And
I'm hard pressed to find a reason to deny this fezone. I would like
-- and I know anyone making a motion on this item is going to be
booed by the audience today. I understand that. I would like to
limit any access of the related PUD to a single access if and when
Livingston Road should ever be built. I'll just say that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Instead of the two?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, instead of two, one single
access on the eastern side to Livingston Road to -- hopefully our
transportation department will coordinate that with -- with what may
happen across the street.
Other than that, I'm -- I'm prepared to make a motion to
approve the Related Group PUD if there are no other additions from my
colleagues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. I
need to make sure that the record reflects that the petitioner early
in his presentation made certain architectural representations and
commitments. And I want to make sure that those are part of the
record.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have the pictures here to go
into the record.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Any further comments?
If not --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just considering we've had on
record from all sides that there is no -- and including the county,
that there is no impact to Livingston and it won't impact the studies
we're doing, then I'll support the motion.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Passes.
As soon as the TAG meeting is over, we'll -- we'll go
ahead and continue here. Mr. Perkins, are you through with your
meeting now? Can we go ahead?
MR. PERKINS: I'm sorry.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 96-25, RE PETITION R-96-2, MARK LAMOUREUX OF MARK LAMOUREUX
ENGINEERING REPRESENTING MICHAEL HOY, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
"E" ESTATES TO "C-3" COHMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896) AND ISLE
OF CAPRI ROAD (C.R. 951), CONSISTING OF 3.86 ACRES, MORE OR LESS -
ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Next item is 12(B)(2),
petition R-96-2.
MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino, the
current planning section -- planning services division -- section.
The petition before you has to do with rezoning certain
lands in the estates zoning district to -- from the current E estates
zoning district to C-3 commercial intermediate zoning district. The
major issue on this petition has to do with the amount of land to be
rezoned to a C -- to a commercial category.
The land is located at the northwest corner of 951 and
the Pine Ridge Road extension. That intersection, i.e., both the
north side and the south side, is designated as a neighborhood
activity center in the Golden Gate area master plan. The Golden Gate
area master plan specifically says that that neighborhood activity
center consists of ten acres. However, not more than five acres of it
can be zoned commercial.
It further -- it further provides that -- that not more
than 50 percent of any one petition can be -- exceed an acreage of two
and a half acres unless the board of commissioners by its decision
decides to allow one project to consist of more than two and a half
acres. Obviously the entire site is surrounded with E estates zoning
district.
Golden Gate area master plan further says that in -- in
these types of neighborhood centers you may fezone the land C-i, C-2,
or C-3. In -- in reviewing this petition, staff concluded that --
that the C-3 zoning district contained uses that went beyond what we
normally conceive to be neighborhood-type uses.
So the -- the recommendation to the petitioner was that
the C-3 uses be -- be fine tuned to eliminate those types of uses in
the C-3 district that tend to require a regional market for their
support, uses such as advertising agencies, any -- any use with a --
with a heavy emphasis on the use of outdoor space. Let me read some
of those uses that -- direct mail advertising services, commercial
photography, photo finishing laboratories, department stores, marinas,
membership organizations. In other words, quite frankly, we suggested
a finely -- a considerably reduced C-3 classification of uses.
The petitioner agreed to that limitation. And the
petition as presented to the planning commission with those
limitations was approved by the planning commission. The planning
commission, let me say, recommended to this board that the entire 3.86
acres of land be rezoned, that you take advantage of that provision in
the Golden Gate area master plan that allows you the -- the discretion
to exceed the two and a half acres.
Let me say that as an issue unrelated to the specific
case, the 3.86 acres, the planning commission also asked staff to
carry to you the message that it feels that the Growth Management Plan
ought to be -- the Golden Gate area master plan component of the
Growth Management Plan ought to be amended to provide that at this
intersection more than five acres of land be made available for
commercial development, the opinion of the planning commission that
that intersection doesn't function, will not function much differently
than a normal activity center given the amount of development that is
expected to -- to be in close proximity of that intersection and that
they urge you to direct staff to take a hard look at the limitation of
five acres on that -- at that intersection.
The staff -- our staff responsible for various reviews
relative to consistency with the Growth Management Plan reviewed this
petition. And their recommendations and advice to us was that this
petition did meet all the required elements of the Growth Management
Plan.
The planning commission -- the planning commission
unanimously recommended approval. At that meeting there were
objections to the petition represented by an adjacent property owner.
They did not object to the actual rezoning of the prop -- of some of
the property to commercial. Their concern was that the petitioner not
be granted more than 1.93 acres of land for commercial so that their
opportunity to enjoy some of that rezoning bundle of rights would
extend to them.
The planning commission, as I said, indicated that all
of this land ought to be rezoned, but they also urge you to consider
making more land available so that the adjacent landowner could share
in the bundle of rights that goes with commercial zoning. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: If there are any questions, I'd be happy to
answer them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we get into the
questions or petitioner's presentation, one of my pet peeves is this
continues to be labeled wrong. The petition introduction and summary
says, corner of Pine Ridge and Isles of Capri Road. I think it was
1993 when we rescinded calling County Road 951 Isles of Capri Road.
And every once in a while it still seems to crop up in our documents.
I think south of 41 where it's State Road 951, they kept Isles of
Capri Road. Anywhere north of that it is County Road 951. It's not
legally Isles of Capri Road.
Little pet peeve of mine, but also we don't want to
record some legal document referring to a road that doesn't exist.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good catch.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Either that or we'd have to curve
Pine Ridge way to the south.
I do have a couple of questions of Mr. Nino before he --
before we get to the petitioner. One, this parcel, am I correct in
assuming it cannot be legally subdivided? Maybe I had a question for
the county attorney.
MR. NINO: It can't be legally subdivided for two estate
-- for two estate lots.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It can?
MR. NINO: It cannot.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Cannot.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Cannot.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. That was the --
MR. NINO: Assuming it --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And neither --
MR. NINO: -- remains E --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Neither --
MR. NINO: -- estates single-family.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I assume since it's the
larger of the group neither can the lots to the south of it be
subdivided.
MR. NINO: Correct.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's all.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Lamoureux.
MR. LAMOUREUX: Good morning. My name is Mark
Lamoureux. I'm representing the petitioner here today.
As staff has pointed out, we have worked together to try
to make this petition as palatable as possible. We've limited the
uses. We've agreed to all of the criteria within the Golden Gate area
master plan except we do have one situation where we're asking for the
board to use their judgment and -- and allow us to be zoning 3.86
acres versus the 2.5.
I think it's a reasonable and very sound request because
the ownership patterns I've shown on this exhibit here -- the
ownership patterns show our property at the northwest corner of Pine
Ridge Road and 951. Adjacent to us is a vacant parcel of 2.27, and
just north of that is an existing VFW post on 2.73 acres.
The planning literature, the engineering design
literature, calls for us to have at least five acres to develop a
neighborhood type shopping center there. And we're already kind of
squeezed on that. We feel it's good judgment to allow the entire
parcel because we find it to be a bit awkward as to how we would
divide up our property with two and a half acres of zoning and 1.36
acres of -- of estates.
Anyhow, we feel that it does make good sense. The
timing is right. The market -- the people who live out there I
believe want something at this location. And the traffic counts have
indicated almost 20,000 trips per day from this traffic light south,
almost 18,000 traffic trips per day on the northern section of 951,
and close to 13,000 trips per day on Pine Ridge Road.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got to agree. I mean, as
you look at -- and, Mr. Nino, you can help me if I'm making an error
here, but I'm trying to figure this out. Obviously if the -- if you
have tens of thousands of people traveling the two major roadways, you
would want any commercial activity to front your major roadways; yet
the access is on the back portion there. And, frankly, I'm not sure
what you do with 1.6 -- is that what would be left, one point --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 1.3.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 1.3 acres of estate zoned
property backing up against commercial and on the other side having
the VFW. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe I'm missing
something, but it appears -- the request appears to make sense. MR. NINO: Yes. In our -- our opinion it does.
MR. LAMOUREUX: Lastly, I would like to add as my own
opinion professionally removing myself as an agent for this
petitioner, I feel it just makes a whole lot of sense to consider
allowing more commercial rezoning at this location. Because of all of
the other property that's on the southwest corner, I feel that that's
also appropriate and one that should be given consideration for
commercial rezoning.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have public
speakers on this item?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Dr. Spagna.
MR. SPAGNA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Neno Spagna, and I'm here representing the Brooks family who
owns the parcel of land that's sand -- sandwiched in between the
petitioner's property and the VFW.
And I have one question I wanted to ask before I make a
very short presentation. And I believe I heard -- Mr. Nino said that
this was recommended unanimously by the planning commission? And my
memory serves me that it was something like about a four to two or
five to two or something like that, and I just wanted to get that
corrected before I make my presentation.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: While he's looking that up, why
don't you go ahead with your presentation.
MR. SPAGNA: Okay. Actually I come here this morning
with mixed emotions. As far as the Brooks family is concerned, we
have been petitioning the planning commission and the former members
of the board going back to -- I have a letter that I sent to Mr. Oates
when he was member of the planning commission which was dated 1983
asking that this corner be designated as a neighborhood commercial
center.
So we do not have any problem with the granting of the
zoning. As a matter of fact, we fully support that. We think it
should be done. However, we do have a problem in the distribution of
this commercial property. We don't feel it's fair just because they
were the first ones in to petition that they should get the bulk of
the zoning and that the Brooks family is forced into taking whatever
remains.
So I had prepared a formula for what I thought was the
equal distribution of the zoning for these two properties.
Unfortunately, my letter did not come up to you with the rest of the
package, so you have no knowledge of it. And it would be difficult
for you to read it and absorb all of it at the present time, but I
would like to have you have a copy of that, and I will briefly explain
what it said.
What it said was this: The Brooks property and the
petitioner's property amounts to something like 6.11, I believe, acres
of land. If you take the amount that the petitioner owns and the
amount that the Brooks family owns and you proportion that out based
on the ownership, it comes out to where -- let's see. I don't have
that letter here, but the petitioner would get 2.25 acres, and the
Brooks would get 1.85 acres. No, that's -- no, that's not right.
That's --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 3.15.
MR. SPAGNA: No, that's right, 1.85.
Also right along with that, it's my feelings -- and I
hope that the board will share with it -- that the 5-acre stipulation
that's placed on that, that's a product of the sum of the 2 two and a
half-acre parcels. So if the board has a right to change one factor
of that formula which you do have, well, then it just stands to me in
my mind that also the product is going to change.
So if you have two plus two equals four and then you
change it to two plus three, it no longer equals four. It equals
five. And I think the same thing applies to this. If you change the
amount of property that you give them over the two and a half acres,
well, then I think the sum total is going to go from 5 acres to
whatever it comes out, 6.85.
I think that that power rests with you and that this can
-- you all can interpret this as within the latitude of your action,
and you can grant them the 3.86 acres of land, but also then the total
amount has to be raised from 5 acres to 6.86. We have no problem with
that. I mean, we think that would be fair and equitable. The five
acres, a limit that's placed in place in there, seems to be the
culprit that's causing all the difficulties here.
Also we concur with the fact that the staff should
review the amount of land that's included in this neighborhood
commercial zone.
Another thing that's caused a problem there is that when
this was designated on the map it was just shown as a semi-circle with
no attempt to designate the amount of land that actually fell within
that circle.
So I think probably we're close on many aspects with the
petitioner, but there are a few aspects that we are concerned about.
Could I sum up real quick the three reasons why I'm
here?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Quickly, please.
MR. SPAGNA: All right. We would ask that you consider
one of three things: Number one, that you proportion the C-3
according to the letter which I have submitted; number two, that you
make a determination that if you can increase the amount from two and
a half to 2.86 that this would also raise the 5-acre stipulation; and
number three, that definitely we want you to or would hope and wish
that you would send the staff and the planning commission the
recommendation to reconsider the amount of land covered in this note.
And I thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Brooks.
MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, if I might, Dr. Spagna's
correct. The -- the vote of the planning commission -- I should have
looked at my executive summary -- was five to two.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, sir. Mr. Brooks.
MR. BROOKS: How you doing? Larry Brooks, one of the
property owners directly north of the petition. I don't obzect --
object to the zoning change but would like our fair share.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning again.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're looking almost too
happy today, A1.
MR. PERKINS: It's a -- it's a good day. I'm alive and
well. I'm breathing. That's 90 percent. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade
Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights.
First I have to ask a question. Commissioner
Constantine, at the landfill meeting, the consultants designated one
of the areas going to be the center of activity in 2010 I believe it
is? Was that the Immokalee Road and 9517 Do you remember?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Actually I think it
might have been this intersection here as geographically, physically
and physical activity would be Immokalee but geographically here,
yeah.
MR. PERKINS: We're talking about Pine Ridge Road and
951 being the center of activity. Okay? All right. With that, I
need to bring up a couple of things if that's the case. Evacuation
routes from nine -- from Marco Island to Goodland going on through.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Make sure these relate to this
petition in some way, A1.
MR. PERKINS: Right, right, okay. No, no, no. The
traffic flow past this -- this corner, very important. And, of
course, 951's going to be extended somewhere along the line up to Tree
Line Drive and also into the university. It will somewhere along the
line.
Hey, for the record, I was here before Pine Ridge Road
was here. I was here before air conditioning. Sorry. That's the way
it is. Anyhow, give it some thought that you need to take a look down
the road a little bit. Know what I mean? In other words, if you
remember back years and years ago when the advertisings were I'll sell
you some swamp land in Florida, well, hell, I bought it, and the
state's buying it back. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't know how that related to
this PUD or this fezone request. Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By -- by the fairness formula
that Dr. Spagna put together, we'd be creating a nightmare for zoning
and appraisal purposes. As much as it appears to be fair, I think
gratis zoning by virtue of another application is a bad precedent and
probably a practice we don't want to be involved in.
In my opinion, this is a square peg in a round hole
because when they developed neighborhood activity centers, they're
operating on the basis of two and a half- to five-acre pieces. And I
don't think anyone imagined three and a half-acre pieces in that and
what it would do. And the fact that you can't subdivide this to
create that two and a half acres and so forth is -- is problematic.
So, you know, I'd just -- I -- I think we might need to
adjust the neighborhood centers in the Growth Management Plan to allow
for board discretion over five acres, you know, if it's -- if it's
warranted due to land-constrained purposes. And that may be a way of
resolving the property to the north difficulty because to then say
only two and a half of 3.8 acres can be used for commercial, the
property appraiser would probably have a nightmare every year when
they go out and try and figure out what's commercial and just -- it
doesn't make sense.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have more public
speakers?
That did it?
Then I'll close the public hearing. And what's the
pleasure?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion we
approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With the -- with the -- as
recommended by the planning commission.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That includes -- I'm sorry. That
includes the review of the Growth Management Plan and neighborhood
center aspect on how it can apply to this so we don't squeeze somebody
MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- unnecessarily?
MR. NINO: -- could we get on the record that the
petitioner does agree to the limitations placed on the C-37
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. I thought that was part of
the recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we ask him if he does
agree to it.
MR. LAMOUREUX: We agree to everything, yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You agree specifically to the -- to
the limitation of -- MR. LAMOUREUX: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- C-3.
MR. LAMOUREUX: Yes, limitations.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: C-3 or less.
MR. LAMOUREUX: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to
include Commissioner Hancock's direction.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Second?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll amend the second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to make a note for the
long range planning department that we'll be looking -- need to take a
look at that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's the normal activity
center acreage? Is it ten on each corner?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, 40 acres.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 96-26, AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-20, BY ADOPTING THE 1994 EDITION
OF THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE AS PUBLISHED BY THE SOUTHERN BUILDING
CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., AS AMENDED BY COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: 12(C)(1) is a recommendation the
Board of County Commissioners amend ordinance 95-20.
MR. PERICO: Morning, commissioners. Ed Perico,
building director. I'm here to ask you to accept the amendments to
ordinance 95-20, the hurricane building ordinance, which was 94
edition. There's no fiscal impact on the county; okay? We've got
minimum changes. We've had graphics that were changed to make it more
legible. And we've asked for a -- basically all the formats have been
changed. But as I said, there's no fiscal impact on the community at
all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does this increase the -- do
these requirements as updated increase the cost to the average
single-family home builder?
MR. PERICO: No, sir, not at all.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I was for it. I was
just late.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 96-27, PROVIDING FOR A PROCEDURE FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE
ROYAL COVE SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND TO PROVIDE FOR A
METHOD OF COLLECTION, FINANCING AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Item 12(C)(2) is an
ordinance for the Royal Cove sewer special assessment district.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Don't we have a public hearing?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me -- let me -- before we do
that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before we -- before we approve
it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second for approval of
this. This is just a continuation of the policy that we -- MR. CLEMONS: It's confirming what you've done
previously. Tim Clemons, waste water director. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Otherwise known as Grizzly
Adams.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
MR. CLEMONS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Tim.
Item #12C3
PETITION AV-96-003, COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AS AGENT
FOR OWNER DOANE-KEMPFER JOINT VENTURE, REQUESTING VACATION OF ALL
PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF AN EIGHTY FOOT (80') ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
KNOWN AS TRAIL BLVD. - CONTINUED TO JUNE 4, 1996
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: 12(C)(3), petition AV-96-003.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, both item 12(C)(3) and
12(C)(4) are public hearings that were continued from the 14th.
Counsel for both parties are here today, and they requested a one-week
continuance with the board's approval. Staff would recommend that
with their recommendation of trying to work out some problems that, in
fact, we continue these two public hearings one week.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that impact our construction
schedule at all?
MR. ARCHIBALD: It does not.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are we still within the
readvertising period?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we are.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to continue
based on staff recommendation for a period of one week, Mr.
Archibald?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That will be to continue both
AV-96-003 and AV-96-010.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second to continue.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we close the public
hearing?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Didn't have one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We just continued it. That
concludes our regular agenda with the exception of the
communications. Commissioner Matthews?
Item #12C4
PETITION AV-96-010 JOHN H. PASSIDOHO AS AGENT FOR OWNER STS PROPERTIES
REQUESTING VACATION OF ALL PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF AN EIGHTY
FOOT (80') ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS TRAIL BOULEVARD - CONTINUED TO
JUNE 4, 1996
This item was continued in conjunction with Item #12C3.
Item #14A
EMINENT DOMAIN BILL - COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO FAX LETTER TO THE
GOVERNOR REQUESTING A VETO
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I've got a couple items.
Let me get my list.
First -- first item is a couple weeks ago after the end
of the legislative sec -- session, I had asked Mr. Weigel to develop a
timeline and costs for challenging the eminent domain bill on its
constitutionality. And first I wanted to get those costs. But in
addition to that, an update on this bill, it was forwarded to the
Governor on Hay 17. It's yet to be signed. It will become law June
the 1st if he fails to sign it or if he fails to veto it.
I'd -- I'd like to ask this board if we want to
entertain the writing of letters to encourage the Governor to actively
veto this bill, and that will save our taxpayers a considerable amount
of money.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel has a comment on that.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. In fact, I had as my -- item
for the board members today was that based on the previous board
direction to the county attorney to do all things legal and proper
toward the challenge of this should it become law. I had drafted a
letter to send to the Governor requesting the veto because obviously
if it's vetoed, then we don't have to challenge a law that's -- that's
been enacted.
And my only question to you today was as drafted I'm '-
I'm prepared to -- to send a letter that indicates from the county
attorney that the board has previously sent a resolution which we
indicate here and send a new copy of to the Governor and that on
behalf of the board direction my request to the Governor to veto this
-- this act, proposed act.
And the question would be whether you want to send a
different letter yourselves or me prepare a letter for you to send in
this regard, but --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is your --
MR. WEIGEL: -- Iwve got one for me to send right now,
in fact.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is your letter fairly strongly
worded?
MR. WEIGEL: Itws about to be a little more strongly
worded. I have a draft here, and itws not quite tweaked as I would
wish it to be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not feisty enough yet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- the problem is, though,
he could sign this bill at any moment and -- and -- and have it become
law, or he could choose to wait and have it become law on June 1
either way. So my concern is that any activity that we choose to take
I think we need to do it very quickly.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. How about -- how about if we
give Mr. Weigel direction to use harsh language in his letter and to
fax that off this afternoon and follow up with a hard copy?
MR. WEIGEL: We will and Federal Express it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. And
Commissioner Matthews had mentioned urging people to write letters.
And I donlt know that itls necessarily the boardls position to tell
our citizens to write letters. But certainly if they want to follow
our lead and communicate with the Governor, I would encourage that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We -- we have several people in
the county who testified before the legislature committees on this
bill. And perhaps it would be appropriate for us to encourage those
groups to write a -- write letters to the Governor encouraging him to
actively veto this bill based on the testimony that they gave -- gave
and -- and to reiterate their problems with this bill. I -- I just
canlt help but think we -- we have an opportunity here to save
probably several tens of thousands of dollars if not considerably more
than that --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thatls true.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- in -- in challenging this
bill.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Give it a try.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, letls -- letls do it.
Item #14B
NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS PUD UPDATE - REPORT TO BE PROVIDED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Did you have another item?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, Iive got two other items.
One -- one deals with Naples Bath and Tennis. Commissioner Hancock
brought this item up a couple of weeks ago. And -- and I thought our
decision, Commissioner Hancock, was that we wanted this board to make
a decision on that hotel or transient housing if it was not already
approved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Actually as I remember it,
I asked Mr. Weigel to look into it to determine whether or not that
was a -- a -- a direction we could take, the reason being if the PUD
-- there may be some legal standing if the PUD was created in such a
way that we are then imposing additional standards on it that we donlt
have the legal right to do, we need to know that because, you know,
again, I hadnlt reviewed it fully. And my understanding was it said
it needed to go to the planning commission. But, you know, in other
words, is there a way that the board should -- should the board be
hearing that item. And I was kind of trusting Mr. Weigel to tell us
whether or not we'd be imposing a standard that -- that really we
didn't have the authority to impose or whether we should hear it.
That was the clarification I was seeking.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's my understanding that this
issue's going before the planning commission relatively soon --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- with -- I -- I for some
reason want to say June the 10th, but that -- it may not quite be that
date. But anyway, we have not had that report yet whether we can
intervene or ask for it to -- to come to this level, so I guess we
need that report.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. If it's all right with you all --
and I've been working with Harjorie Student and staff on that -- we'll
just provide you a brief memo report in the next day or so.
Item #14C
BASE LEVEL SERVICE REPORT - UPDATE TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE BUDGET
MEETING
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. The third item deals with
a letter that I received from MICA, and they've reminded me that
Commissioner Hac'Kie asked for base level of services for our budget
purposes. And I was wondering if -- if we've received that yet, Mr.
Dotrill, because we've got apparently MICA and several other groups
that are interested in getting that too.
MR. DORRILL: This came about as a result of the Marco
Island Master Plan, and we have -- have sought out information from
both the city of Naples and also Lee County. And Naples does not
appear to be doing much of anything in defining base level of
services. And I was -- I am scheduled to speak a little further with
Commissioner Hac'Kie about that on Friday.
Lee County only within its budget narrative -- and we
have copies of that as well. I'd be happy to share them with you --
they did take a very hard stand at trying to define what base level of
services would be as part of the county commission's budget.
Unfortunately, they failed to adopt many, if any, of those when --
when push came to shove.
But if you'd like to see them, we are trying to develop
from our own staff's perspective to incorporate in our budget document
what people do get for their base or property tax dollar in Collier
County and then try and define a little further what they do not get
or should expect to pay from taxing districts. And we intend to
incorporate that into -- into part of your budget workshop process.
We have been working on that and will have something prepared and
present -- I believe the staff committee owes me a response by this
Friday.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say can -- can we
get that a week or more before the budget hearings so that we can
digest it?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other -- just to comment on
that, I heard that -- again, through that infamous grapevine that
Commissioner Hancock had -- had even refined that request.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to tune into this
grapevine.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah -- in a way that I think is
real improvement, and that is he's asked for a pie chart, just a plain
old pie chart, that says if you have $125,000, $25,000 tax exemption
for homestead and so if you got 100,000 bucks that you're paying
property taxes on, show me in a pie chart how much goes for what.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, really two requests.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even better.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The county manager's office is
working on this and kind of have two pie charts: One that says of the
taxes you pay to the Board of County Commissioners, if you pay -- have
$100,000 home after homestead, $2.04 goes to animal control and $32
goes to road and bridge or, you know -- really to show you how it
breaks down.
And the second one I was considering -- and this is
actually because NOG phrased it in such a way that my wife suggested
the idea that -- that -- she was asking me to clarify it because the
way they phrased it, she said they said it was going to show up on
your tax bill. And I said, ding, what a great idea. Put an insert in
the tax bill showing that minus HSTUs of your total tax bill, what
goes to who. Which constitutional officers and the school board and
the county, of your total tax bill, what percentage of that pie is
taken out by each one. And I thought what a great voter information
tool, resident information tool.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sounds vaguely familiar.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So are you saying my wife cheated
off of you, John? No, I'm just -- so those -- those two thing, one
for our use and -- and to get out public information. The other to --
as an insert in your tax bill. I thought, jeez, you know, what a
great idea.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That all sounds like a great
idea, but it sounds like an awful lot of work at the same time for our
staff to be developing what happens to general fund monies after you
subtract revenue sharing and all those other funds that come to us
whether -- and, you know, Mr. Dotrill will have to help -- help me on
how difficult it would be to produce precisely out of ad valorem taxes
what goes where.
MR. DORRILL: Well, that's -- to take it a step further,
I had asked -- we had three different requests from three different
commissioners, and we're trying to compile them all. Mr. Constantine
had asked for some additional information on historical increases and
percentages by major spending category from 1992 to date. And we're
also trying to look at per capita costs on the expenditure side again
within general fund for major spending departments and to compare us
against the other urban coastal counties in southwest Florida.
And we're doing that outside of the budget office, and
we've been paying all-day task team, and we're getting staff support
from the other divisions because the budget office is too busy to try
and compile all that. And they owe me a response by Friday, I
believe.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Nothing?
Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, except for just I wasn't
quite sure, Mr. Dotrill, on the answer to that question. You're
looking for an answer from your staff. They haven't gotten back to
you, but you -- you're going to make them do that this week or so and
then --
MR. DORRILL: This was previously assigned two weeks
ago. And they had been working. They got copies of budgets from
Sarasota, Lee, and Charlotte County to be able to compile all of the
various individual requests that we have had and at the same time to
define what we are currently doing with base level ad valorem general
fund department expenses which -- and we're trying to compile because
we couldn't find any good examples in either Lee County or the city of
Naples for that when we thought that perhaps we would.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we do something -- I mean, I
don't want to compli -- complicate this and I don't want to belabor it
because it's really complicated to begin with. But if we were to sum
up our base level of service and what it costs and then subtract from
that user fees and revenue sharing, then we get to ad valorem. Is
that roughly what happens?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought got us
there.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I thought too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I keep finding a problem when we
talk about base level of services. I mean, how many potholes is base
level?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there some things that --
that -- that to quantify them is to -- you know, many times we fill a
need, and that is base level depending on what that need is.
MR. DORRILL: Your staff has struggled with that because
it's hard to define what base level expenses are generally. But then
recognizing that when the commissioners get a constituent complaint,
by God, we better drop what we're doing and run out there and fix it
and spend the money to fix it. But we're still trying to clarify what
that is in terms of what the normal turnaround or the normal annual
expenses incur fixing constituent complaints.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is why you can't find a
good example of.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just for clarification, my
question is -- will, I think, be adequately answered by what
Commissioner Matthews just described. I mean, that's what I think I'm
trying to get the answer to.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Base level less the revenue
sharing less -- less our user fees, and what's the ad valorem that
must be assessed to meet that?
MR. DORRILL: So that I understand, what -- what we are
generally looking at is what we call net impact to the general fund
where we do back out user fees. And this is something that's good --
let's just pick the -- the library system. It's in the general fund
that is primarily supported by property taxes, but they do get some
revenue from fines every year.
So we take the non-ad valorem revenue off the top of
what -- the remaining would then be what we call net impact to the
general fund. And those are the costs that we are showing
historically. Those are the costs that I want to show you
comparatively so that you know you spend 25 bucks a year in Collier
County per capita in support of the library system but as compared to
what in these other 3 counties that are similar to ours and up the
coast.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm interested in the second
part, but please don't hold up the first part. Please don't hold up
the answer to how much do you spend on libraries in Collier County
waiting to get the information on compared to other counties.
MR. DORRILL: We've already got it.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And I gave them two weeks to get it all
done, and I expect to have it by Friday. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You know, I'm just not sure that's
what the citizens are looking for, though. My understanding of what
they're asking is for my base level of property taxes what do I
support, not how many dollars go here, how many dollars go there but
what actually do my tax dollars support. Is it the library system, is
it this, is it that, I mean, fairly generalized rather than specific
$2.29 goes here, $50.38 goes here.
MR. DORRILL: Well, there are three --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't think that's what they're
looking for.
MR. DORRILL: There were three different issues from
three different commissioners, and I'm trying to compile them all.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And I assigned it to one staff committee
as opposed to, you know, trying to individually respond to each one of
your requests.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see both. I
think Commissioner Norris is right that when we get asked the
question, they want the summary version. But in order for me to best
understand that and best be able to explain it, I want to have that --
that detail.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, just to give you an example,
a guy called me last week and was asking why can't we -- why don't we
have the county go out and beautify X road. And I explained to him
that, you know, if it's a local road, you need to set up a district,
do it yourself. Well, we pay taxes and why can't we just do it.
That's what they're interested in. MR. DORRILL: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: His taxes don't cover that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah. They're not interested in
out of my $100,000 assessment, 48 cents is going to go to
beautification. They don't care about that. They just want to know
what do I get for my tax dollars.
MR. DORRILL: That's part A. That's part of our -- the
format that Lee County used was good, and so I have required every
division administrator to give us generally what they can do with the
general fund dollars that they receive.
Item #14D
DISCUSSION RE HEALTHY KIDS PROGRAM - NAPLES COHMUNITY HOSPITAL WILLING
TO FUND THE PROGRAM FOR TWO YEARS
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Fine. You had one?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One item. The healthy kids
program, last Tuesday we had discussion if you recall. And while the
majority of the board supported it, we did not put tax dollars toward
it.
I had ongoing conversations with Naples Community
Hospital last week and obviously will discuss that in detail June 11
as we said -- actually within the next several days I'll give you a
written summary of what that is.
But in a nutshell, what it is is Naples Community
Hospital will fund 100 percent of the cost of the program for the next
two years. And what they're asking the board to do is commit to
assist them in finding funding for the out years. And that's three
through five initially, and then the state, I understand, actually has
this set up for five years at a time, so I'm sure it will go beyond
five years. But the first five years are the -- are the key.
And that may be private sources. That may be -- I know
as Commissioner Hancock said last week, if we can find somewhere where
we actually get that back either through our health department where
that money comes back to us because of other expenditures or
whatever.
But you may recall last week I was very sure of myself
that we could find funding other than tax dollars, and that was
because we already had this conversation going with Naples Community
on Tuesday. And I feel nearly as sure that we're going to find the
private dollars for the out years. I've already started conversations
on that. And while the money won't need to be there for 24 months, we
already have some -- some feelers out and have some action and some
interest in doing that. So I'm very, very confident that we're going
to be able to do that as well.
And as you recall last week, we supported the program
and not the tax dollars. And I think this is panning out and showing
it was the right thing to do because the program's still going to
happen. And most importantly, the kids are going to get taken care
of.
But a side benefit of the way we did it is the taxpayer
is not being burdened with it. So we end up with the best of both
worlds there. But you'll have it in written summary within a week or
so, and then we'll deal with it at the board level on the llth.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was it.
Item #15A
STAFF COHMUNICATIONS - WORKSHOP MEETING TO BE HELD ON HAY 30, 1996 AT
THE LIBRARY
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Just to remind you all that Wednesday --
or excuse me, Thursday morning we are going to do a little mid-year
assessment of your work plan and your goals with Mr. Sumek.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What?
MR. DORRILL: Library nine to noon and look forward to
seeing you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: At the library?
MS. FILSON: It's on their calendars, Thursday morning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How long do we expect that to
last?
MR. DORRILL: We never go beyond noon.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because I have to drop my
family off at the airport at ten, so I'll be there as -- I'll be there
as soon as possible after that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll drop them off for you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's it?
MR. DORRILL: That's it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Just I'll -- I'll prepare that letter for
the Governor's office today on the eminent domain legislation.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You'll get that out this
afternoon?
MR. WEIGEL: It will go out today.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Miss Filson, do you have anything
further?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We're dismissed and adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Matthews and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 96-244 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51220-025;
OWNER OF RECORD - VINCENTE L. HARTINEZ
See Pages
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-245 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51004-046;
OWNER OF RECORD - G.J.BYRNE
See Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-246 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51220-049;
OWNER OF RECORD - MARIA H. DELGADO
See Pages
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 96-247 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60116-025;
OWNER OF RECORD - LOUIS AND LORETTA CAMBRUZZI
See Pages
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 96-248 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60119-026;
OWNER OF RECORD - QUALITY PROPERTIES SW FL., INC.
See Pages
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 96-249 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEHENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NO. 60122-055;
OWNER OF RECORD - HAROLD W AND OLLIE COFFHAN
See Pages
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 96-250 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60124-024;
OWNER OF RECORD - THE NEW YORK TIMES CO.
See Pages
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 96-251 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60201-003;
OWNER OF RECORD - KEVIN F. FITZGERALD
See Pages
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 96-252 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60214-073;
OWNER OF RECORD - RUSSELL S MORRISON, PATRICK K. MORRISON
See Pages
Item #16A10 - Withdrawn
Item #16All
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PALT OF WORLD TENNIS CENTER, PHASE SEVEN - WITH
STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
Item #16A12
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR BAREFOOT BOAT CLUB A/K/A
TEHPUSTECH MARINA - WITH STIPULATIONS AND LETTER OF CREDIT
See Pages
Item #16A13
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF HONTCLAIR PARK VILLAS - WITH
STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16B1
WORK ORDER NO. WHBP-AS-96-S WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. TO
PROVIDE SURVEYING SERVICES FOR GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT
BETWEEN C.R. 951 & WILSON BOULEVARD, CIE #62 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,940
See Pages
Item #16B2
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH U.S. HOME CORPORATION FOR ACCESS AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CONCURRENT WITH C.R. 951 FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENTS
UNDER BID NO. 95-2320
See Pages
Item #16B3
STIPULATED ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY CASE NUMBER
95-5071-CA-01-TB (PARCEL NO. l17A) FOR VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FOUR
LANING IMPROVEMENTS - $1700 TO BE DEPOSITED IN COURT REGISTRY WITHIN 30
DAYS
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 96-254 EXTENDING THE LANDFILL CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THROUGH 12/31/96
See Pages
Item #16B5
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KISSINGER, CAMPP &
ASSOCIATES RELATING TO RFP 95-2430 BRIDGE AND STRUCTURE REPAIRS
See Pages
Item #1686 - Moved to Item #883
Item #16C1
BUDGET AMENDMENT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARK MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE
DURING THE HEAVY GROWING SEASON
Item #16D1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN RICCARDO B. RIVAS, PH. D., P.A. AND COLLIER COUNTY
FOR POST DISASTER MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING SERVICES
See Pages
Item #16D2
AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS AS THE COUNTY'S GROUP HEALTH
AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION MANAGED HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
See Pages
Item #16El
WORK AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION'S CURRENT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TOE XCEED $5,000 TO PREPARE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF
THE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE
See Pages
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-402 AND 96-421
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #1611
EXECUTION OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED CONVEYING ANY AND ALL INTERESTS THAT
COLLIER COUNTY HAY HAVE IN THE 60 FOOT BISECTING EASEMENT ON TRACT 97,
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 4
See Pages
There being no further business for the Good of the
County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair
at 12:22 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRPERSON
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: Shelly
Semmler