BCC Minutes 02/13/1996 R REGUAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1996
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
VICE CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock
Bettye J. Matthews
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3 & #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call to order the meeting of the county
commission on February 13, 1996.
Mr. Dotrill, could you lead us in an invocation and pledge to the
flag, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, with the crispness of the air this
morning we give thanks for the wonder and glory and the beauty of our
land and especially Collier County. We give thanks for the wonderful
opportunity that we have to raise a family or start a new business or
enjoy our retirement years. Father, as always, we give thanks for this
great country, the greatest country in the world, and we pray not only
for our commander in chief but for our elected officials including our
county commission. We would ask that your hand guide them this morning
as they make the important business decisions and undertake the
deliberations for this community.
Father, we thank you for your saving grace and your wonder, and we
would ask that what would occur here today would be fruitful and
beneficial for Collier County and its people. And we pray these things
in Jesus' name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any changes to our agenda, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. I have only one
change in the change list this morning. It's just a note upon the part
of the clerk's report. It's a request that item 6(B) should replace
item 6(A) as part of the regular agenda on the clerk's report.
Then I have one item pertaining to staff communications
that we want to advise you a week in advance of a somewhat different
type of bond refunding that we intend to propose to you next week.
It's different because it is an item that local banks can bid on, and
we expect to receive a favorable rate, and they're projecting net
present value savings of about $150,000. And I'll report that to you
at the conclusion of today's meeting. And that's all that I have, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine. This change on the clerk's
report, did you indicate that that is going to be a permanent change
in the way our agenda's presented?
(Commissioner Hancock entered the room.)
MR. DORRILL: Yes. That's the indication that was
referred to us by Mr. Brock's office.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Matthews, do you
have any changes?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I have none.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In that case we need a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve
the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
And we have minutes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve the minutes of the meeting of January 23, 1996.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 18-24, 1996 AS ENGINEERS WEEK -
ADOPTED
Proclamations, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This morning I have the pleasure
of reading a proclamation declaring the week of February 18th through
24th Engineers Week, and here to accept that proclamation is John
Steven Kempton, the ways and means chairman of Florida Engineering
Society. Mr. Kempton, if I could ask you to stand right here and face
the firing squad.
Whereas, engineers help to design, construct, and
maintain the infrastructure and facilities that contribute to high
quality of life for all residents of Florida; and
Whereas, Florida's future growth depends on engineers
executing innovative, creative, high-quality solutions to technical
problems; and
Whereas, the stated purposes of the Florida Engineering
Society shall be to advance the public welfare and to promote the
professional, social, and economic interests of the engineering
profession and to stimulate and develop professional concepts among
all engineers through education and practice; and
Whereas, current members of the Florida Engineering
Society and the Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers are making
strides to interact with the engineering education sector to prepare
future engineers to maintain our economic leadership and quality of
life; and
Whereas, it is fitting that we recognize and honor the
continuing contributions of America's engineers by observing Engineers
Week with a motto, engineering, the future.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February
18th through 24th, 1996, be designated as Engineers Week in Florida
and urge all residents to join me in paying tribute to the
contributions of engineers in our society.
Done and ordered this 13th day of February, 1996, signed
John C. Norris, chairman, Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we
accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
accept this proclamation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
There are none.
(Applause)
MR. KEMPTON: On behalf of the Florida Engineering
Society, I would like to accept this proclamation and thank the county
commissioners and the county in general for recognizing us. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 13, 1996, AS EDGERRIN JAMES DAY -
ADOPTED
Commissioner Matthews, I believe you have a
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, I do. Is Edgerrin James in
the room? As he comes forward --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What a way to get out of class.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A few weeks ago we were honoring
a football player at the college level. It is a football player at
the high school level who has also made considerable achievements in
his short career so far.
A proclamation: Whereas, Edgerrin James is a native of
Collier County and a member of the 1996 class of Immokalee High
School; and
Whereas, in his junior year in football he was the
state's leading rusher and first team all state; and
Whereas, in his junior year in football he led his team
to a district title; and
Whereas, in his junior year he was the most valuable
player in both football and basketball and received all-county honors;
and
Whereas, in his senior year despite injury he gained
1,252 yards and scored 9 touchdowns; and
Whereas, in his senior year he was district 16 player of
the year and second team all state; and
Whereas, in his senior year he was selected as one of
the state's top 26 seniors and selected to play in the Florida/Georgia
all-star game; and
Whereas, in his high school career he has rushed for
4,248 yards and 43 touchdowns; and
Whereas, he was selected as Parade All-American for
1996.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the 13th day of
February, 1996, be designated as Edgerrin James Day.
Done and ordered this 13th day of February, 1996, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept
this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hopefully in four years we'll be
back honoring him as a college all-American.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four years, heck, two years and
name the bowl now.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Service awards, Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have service awards for
two of our employees this morning, one of them celebrating her fifth
anniversary with the county from the department of revenue, Virginia
H. Miller. We have a pin and the certificate for five years.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have achieved something we
haven't; five years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Longer than anybody on the
board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And speaking of longer than
anybody, we have the coveted green-stone pin for 20 years' service
with the county, Nery Anderson.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Twenty years?
MS. ANDERSON: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ahh, thank you.
Item #5C1
SIMON VAINER, SOCIAL SERVICES, PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS
THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY, 1996
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have the honor this morning to
recognize our employee of the month for February, Simon Vainer.
Simon, would you come up and stand and face the camera here while I
read a few things about you.
Mr. Vainer has fulfilled the requirements of the county
technician with responsibility for state and federal grants. Mr.
Vainer has done exceedingly well at filling this position. His
generosity in sharing his computer expertise has profited many county
employees, both in and out of this department. All deadlines are met
by this employee with no complaints and little external oversight.
When extra hours are required for project completion, there's never a
problem.
Mr. Vainer devoted much time to the management
information system task force that eventually facilitated the creation
of the new information technology department. He regularly assists
supervision and division administration with production of computer
graphics and functions as our liaison for all computer concerns with
the district area Agency on Aging and the Florida State Department of
Elder Affairs. We are most fortunate to include him as a valued
member of our staff.
Mr. Vainer, I have for you here a letter of commendation
for your files. I have a plaque to present you as employee of the
month and the $50 check to go with it.
(Applause)
Item #8A1
RESOLUTION 96-62 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
PLAN TRANSFERRING $225,000 ORIGINALLY ALLOCATED FOR RENTAL IMPACT FEE
WAIVERS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY S.H.I.P. DOWN PAYMENT/CLOSING COST
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hr. Dorrill, we are ready for
8(A)(1).
MR. HILNE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Don
Hilne. I'm a planner with the housing and urban improvement
department. And this morning I'd like to come before you and request
your approval on a budget amendment that would transfer $225,000 that
was originally allocated for a SHIP impact fee waiver program into the
SHIP down payment and closing costs assistance program. The reason
for this transfer really is twofold. Number one, we've had a very,
very good degree of success with the down payment assistance program.
And as of my last calculation, we've helped 115 families purchase
their first houses -- first homes, rather -- since the program was
adopted in November of 1994. It exceeded all expectations, and with
the rates down lower now, there's a lot more people have been able to
qualify. And it's been a great accomplishment.
The funds that are in the impact fee waiver account
right now are not going to be utilized this fiscal year. And since we
do have the need for the money in the down payment assistance program
right now and we have not been able to find a matching source that
would leverage the funds in the impact fee waiver account, we're
hoping we can continue the down payment assistance program until the
next funding cycle, which would begin in June, which is the state
funding cycle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned we're not going
to use anything out of impact fee waiver. You said that with some
degree of certainty. What's the application process if someone --
particularly if an individual comes in with a sole situation as
opposed to a developer? I assume it's not more than a six-month
process for them to apply. Does this drain the account and then they
not have an opportunity to apply?
MR. HILNE: This would be strictly for the multifamily
rentals, so this would not affect an individual. This is more along
the lines of an actual rental complex where those fees would far and
above exceed that $225,000. Without actually having funds to match or
leverage that with, we cannot utilize them at this time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That wasn't my question.
MR. HILNE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The impact fee waiver, you
said with some degree of certainty there will be no request for those
the rest of the year -- MR. HILNE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- rest of the fiscal year.
Again, if some individual comes in requesting impact fee waivers, do
we turn them away and ask them to come back in October and hold off
building their home or --
MR. HILNE: I -- I think that would depend upon the
circumstances as the project was presented and if at that time that
individual was able to come up with an additional funding source that
would be able to match those -- that $225,000 that's presently in the
account.
MR. MIHALIC: We still have ownership funds -- we still
have ownership funds available. Excuse me, I'm Greg Hihalic of
housing and urban improvement. We still have funding for ownership
for waivers and deferrals. This is only for rental complexes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. HIHALIC: We're trying to do very low income rental
assistance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Host of those applications that we've
seen more recently are taking a six-year deferral which requires no
cash transfer; is that correct?
MR. HIHALIC: That's right, Commissioner. But we will
continue to help first-time home buyers who are building new houses
with impact waivers and deferrals, and there is a separate budget item
for that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers on this?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, you do not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I had one question. This is
$225,000, and I admit, it's not -- it's not a lot of money when you're
talking about a large low income affordable housing project. But we
do have an item on the agenda later today where within the documents
it indicates that they're going to be requesting impact fee
deferrals. And I don't know -- my calculations for whatever they are,
they're $600,000 worth of deferrals that at some point in time they
may come back and ask us to fund for them. Now, what's your
suggestion that we should do in order to accomplish that should we
choose to?
MR. HIHALIC: Well, Commissioner, basically that's 204
units. The maximum we could assist with this program is about 45
units of very low income housing. But I have several developers who
are going to develop very low income housing. It's difficult to say
whether this 204 should get it or the other 42 should get it or this
35 should do it. So it's impossible. I would expect that we're going
to have probably 350 units of very low income housing developed this
year in Collier County, and I don't know how we would allocate it to
one developer versus another. That's why I'd rather eliminate the
incentive, because there's really not enough money to jump start this
type of program.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So is there any other
imaginative financing that's going to be available for these very low
income projects?
MR. HIHALIC: A six-year deferral or outside funding,
funding from the state and federal government. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is more in line with the
board's direction regarding ownership and trying to make it more
available for folks to buy into a home as opposed to rent. So I'm --
you know, if we can't make significant difference in one venue, I'd
like to see us make it in the other. I think it's a good move.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that in the form of a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I will make a motion
that we approve staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #SB1
FUNDING RELATED TO THE HUBSCHHAN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - FUNDING
ALTERNATIVE "B" APPROVED
Item 8(B)(1).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Conrecode, is this item
completely consistent with the agreement we had before the board
verbally?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir, it is. The only difference is
we have a recommended funding option, that being that we cash flow
this, and we will account for it in next year's budget, because we
didn't budget for it specifically this year. It won't cause any
deferrals of projects, but we didn't see any sense in borrowing from
anyone else if we can just simply borrow from our own -- our own
funds. Staff recommends accepting alternative B in the executive
summary.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So this is internal borrowing
then?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If there's not any further
questions, I'd make a motion that we approve alternative B.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Being none, we'll move to 8(C)(1).
Item #8C1
AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY, PARTICIPATING
VETERINARIANS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY VETERINARIAN SOCIETY, AND COLLIER
COUNTY, ESTABLISHING SET FEES FOR NEUTER/SPAY OPERATIONS AND REDUCE
MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR ANIMALS IMPOUNDED BY COLLIER COUNTY ANIMAL
CONTROL - APPROVED
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, are we going to take the
next two items in conjunction?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Both of those are companion
items.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are these ones that we had moved
off the consent agenda, because there were some continuing discussions
that you were going to have, and have you had those?
MR. OLLIFF: We have had those. They actually resulted
in one good clarification-type change, and I'll just point that one
change out for you on this agreement. On page 2 of the contract,
which is attached to the executive summary, in paragraph 3 towards the
bottom of the page we would like to propose at the end or actually the
middle of the third line just putting a period at the end of unit
price and eliminating the rest of that sentence which says together
with the cost of any other charges and fees. That was a little
confusing at the end of that one sentence. I think that was Hiss
Paton's (phonetic) primary concern. We've actually made that change
to the agreement and had the attorneys review and resign, and it's
actually been approved by the veterinarian's association and the
Humane Society as well.
I would also ask that you allow me to correct -- when we
went through the agreement again there were several typos and what we
would just call scribner-type errors, and other than that there were
no changes. We would recommend your approval of both the agreement
and the resolution.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval subject to Mr.
Olliff's comments.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just going to ask
Mr. Weigel if we need a separate motion on these two items.
MR. WEIGEL: Because the second item is a resolution,
I'd appreciate it if you could have two votes for that, please.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I move approval of C(1).
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have speakers
today?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second
on item C(1). All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed?
Being none, the motion on number two.
Item #8C2
RESOLUTION 96-63 MODIFYING THE NEUTER/SPAY AND PRE-ADOPTION HEALTH CARE
PROGRAM OF IMPOUNDED DOGS AND CATS; PROVIDE CONTINUED FUNDING OF THE
EXISTING NEUTER/SPAY TRUST FUND; THE PAYMENT OF A SERVICE FEE FOR EACH
ANIMAL LICENSE SOLD AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 91-214 - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the resolution. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #SD1
REPORT PRESENTED REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION IN THE MATTER
LAWSUIT OF BILLUPS VS. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 94-3606-CA-01-TB
8(D)(1), this is a report.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I had asked that this --
this be put on. I think in our society there's -- there's always an
attorney who's -- who's willing to take money out of somebody's
pocket. And this was a case where we had an elderly citizen
accidentally fall on a handicapped ramp and thought that they would
get $50,000 from the people of Collier County for what was an
accident. And we successfully and aggressively defended that
ourselves, and I wanted to let you know the outcome of that and also,
frankly, to share a credit with the two gentlemen who were here this
morning who saved the taxpayers $50,000 in an award and probably
$50,000 in outside attorney fees that would have otherwise been
required to defend that. Good morning, Jeff.
MR. WALKER: Good morning. Jeff Walker, risk management
director. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you this
morning. Item 8(D)(1) is an informational item regarding the outcome
of the Billups versus Collier County case. With that I'll turn it
over to Mr. Bryant. He can share the details with you.
MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Hay it please the board, I want to thank Mr. Dotrill for those kind
words. We believe that we have vindicated the board's direction to us
to, one, take a very hard line on these type cases where we believe
that somebody is coming to the board and coming to the taxpayers and
wanting to get money for something they should be responsible for. As
Commissioner Constantine has said over and over, people need to be
responsible for their own acts. And that was our whole defense in
this matter. We probably didn't spend more than about $5,000 totally
in defense costs with our independent medical examination, with
witness fees, and everything else.
If you remember, this is the case that we went to
mediation. We offered the plaintiff $4,000. They wanted $18,000 in
mediation, and the board said no way. We went to trial. They put
$50,000 on the board. We asked the jury to come back with no
negligence upon the part of the county. They were out 17 minutes and
exactly came back that way and said no liability. The county doesn't
pay anything. In fact, we're now going after the plaintiff because we
served an offer of judgment last year on them for our costs and fees.
So we wanted to share this with you, and we wanted you
to know that what you wanted in your direction to us has been
vindicated and been furthered.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to compliment the
county attorney's office, in particular Mr. Bryant. Your discretion
and recommendation to this board on which of these appear to be
frivolous and should be pursued has been on the mark, at least the
year I've served on this board. I think it's a credit to the county
attorney's office to advise this board correctly, and I sincerely
appreciate that. And on behalf of the taxpayers of Collier County,
thank you for a job well done.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My goodness, what an unusual set of
circumstances.
MR. DORRILL: Let the record show there was applause as
the county attorney's deputy left the room today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it's great, though, that
we go on notice to the -- to the public that these kinds of suits will
be aggressively fought.
MR. DORRILL: Unfortunately, we have another suit at the
same building for a similar type of -- of incident where somebody
slipped walking up a built-to-code ADA specified handicapped ramp, but
I have an attorney who's willing to take a case on a contingency fee,
and we intend to do the same thing on that as we did on this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think particularily what
we're doing is going after the expenses on the case, so maybe people
won't be so willing to step forward on frivilous items.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-64 APPOINTING STEVEN BIEGELOW, VANESSA FITZ AND JANET
TESTERMAN TO THE CITIZEN'S ADVISORY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our next item is appointment of
members to the Citizens' Advisory Task Force.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
nominate Steve Bigelow.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Steve Bigelow. Any other
nominations?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You took mine, so I --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to -- I'd like to
nominate Janet Testerman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Vanessa Fitz.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve those three
folks.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Vanessa Fitz, Steven Bigelow, and Janet Testerman. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
There are none.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-65 RATIFYING THE APPOINTMENTS OF FRANK BALOGH, TERRI
DOUGLAS, RONALD SMITH, ART DOBBERSTEIN, HEL FISHER, ELLIE KRIER, BUDDY
BRUNKER, WILSON RUHBERGER, AND STEPHEN LADD - ADOPTED
Next item is appointment of members to the disaster
recovery task force.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question. Here at
the bottom it says additionally staff is requesting the board to
ratify the appointment of Stephen Ladd. I'm not sure. I need an
explanation there why that individual didn't submit an application. I
realize it's only through September of this year, but '-
MS. FILSON: None of these actually submitted
applications to the disaster recovery that the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the difference between
Mr. Ladd and the other eight names here?
MS. FILSON: He's only filling in the remainder of the
term. The other terms have expired.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I didn't hear that, Miss Filson. Say
that again, please.
MS. FILSON: He's filling in the remainder of the term,
and all the other terms have expired --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Her microphone's off.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The term that he's filling, has it
expired?
MS. FILSON: No, it won't --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So this -- this one seat is different
from all the others?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Filson, I think your
microphone is not working. You might want to grab Paul's.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I can be clear, if Mr. Ladd is
to be ratified, we have the remaining eight applicants and eight
vacancies?
MS. FILSON: Yes. These names are submitted by the
organizations, and the commissioners simply --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think that mike is
working.
MS. FILSON: None of them work.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Well, that -- motion to --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Try that one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just hear her
explanation again?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Stephen Ladd's appointment will be to
fulfill the remainder of a three-year term, and that term will expire
this year, September of this year. The other terms are for four full
years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a way we can make Mr.
Ladd concurrent with everyone else and clean this up?
MS. FILSON: We can appoint him for the remainder of
this term and then for another full four-year terms.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we choose to do that.
MS. FILSON: Which we normally do if we appoint members
to advisory boards for six months or less.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the desire to do
that, but I'm not sure Mr. Ladd --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- signed up for that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is aware of another four
years. Did he sign up for another four years?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's in the Army so '-
MS. FILSON: I think these applicants are appointed by
the organizations.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we do this. Why don't we --
why don't we put Mr. Ladd in on the same schedule as everybody else
today. If that's not acceptable to him, he can tell us.
MS. FILSON: Okay. But when you -- when you establish
the ordinance, the terms are alternating terms so that everyone's term
doesn't expire at the same time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many people are on the
task force in total?
MS. FILSON: I think it's something like 26.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. That explains why
there are --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good, motion -- motion to approve
staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: September will be plenty more.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have a public
comment today?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, we have none.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 96-2, RE PETITION PUD-95-12, ROBERT L. DUANCE OF HOLE, HONTES
AND ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES,
INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "PUD" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST END OF ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE AND THE WEST SIDE OF THE LIVINGSTON
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll move onto the afternoon agenda
then. First item is 12(B)(1), petition PUD-95-12.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current
planning staff presenting petition PUD-95-12. Robert Duane of Hole,
Hontes and Associates is requesting to fezone a 100-acre parcel
agriculture to planned unit development to be known as the First
Baptist Church PUD. As you see, the site is located at the east end
of Orange Blossom Drive and along the west side of north Livingston
Road. They're surrounded by the Walden Oaks PUD to the west,
agriculture to the north, the Vineyards and ag and estates zoned
property to the east. And further south is the Naples Community
School.
Phase one of this project includes a 75,000 square foot
church and an 80,000 education and administration building with a
childcare facility and a 400-student school. Phase two will expand
the church and administrative buildings to 120,000 square feet each.
The site is designated urban residential in the future land use map
which permits nonresidential uses such as churches and similar uses of
proposing this PUD.
In addition, the traffic analysis indicates that phase
one will generate 2,747 trips on a weekday -- excuse me -- on a Sunday
and 1,426 trips on a weekday. Phase two at buildout could generate up
to 4,396 trips on a Sunday. It is anticipated that Livingston Road
will be improved to a four-lane facility prior to the completion of
phase one. And based on staff's analysis this project will not
significantly impact the adjacent roadway system.
Since the site has been cleared for agricultural
purposes, the project will not have any environmentally sensitive
areas. This petition was referred to all county agencies, and their
review indicates that no level of service standards will be adversely
affected. The project is designed to locate in a cjuster, as you can
see, the -- from the site plan more intensive uses will be in the
center tract C. Less intensive uses will be on the surrounding
areas. The greater setbacks will be required from the perimeter, the
lesser setbacks from within the tract boundaries in the middle.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this
petition, and it was approved unanimously. No letters for or against
this petition has been received by staff. Therefore, staff recommends
that the Board of County Commissioners approve petition PUD-95-12 with
a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, how does -- let me
ask this. What is the long-term plan for (inaudible) Drive and how
does this project impact those plans?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the long term would be for it to
connect up with Livingston Road, and it will be a local-type road.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But this -- this project
is adjacent to that roadway? MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And is there any problem with
reservation of right-of-way, or do these plans conflict with potential
right-of-way of Orange Blossom at all?
MR. BELLOWS: No. I believe they are extending that
roadway through the north end of their property.
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. For the record, Robert Duane from
Hole, Hontes and Associates. We're proposing to upgrade that roadway
as part of our long-term plans.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Duane.
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's unusual for you to be bringing a
church petition. Therefore, is Dr. Spagna on vacation?
MR. DUANE: No. I'm actually proud to bring this. I'm
a member of this church. And our Pastor, Dr. Hayes Wicker, is here
also today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I do have a question on this.
I see part of the proposal is a 50-bed congregate living facility. MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a firm proposal? Are you
planning to do that right away, or could you give us a little
explanation --
MR. DUANE: Yeah. It's one of a menu of long-range
options that we're presently considering. That's the best answer I
can give you today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Perhaps I should ask Mr. Bellows then,
ACLF, would that be normally a use that would be associated with a
church?
MR. BELLOWS: It's possible. It's nothing in the Land
Development Code that says it is an accessory use; but definitely that
is something, care and providing, that some churches have been
involved with.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I believe the court system
has said it's not a regular accessory use, though, in another church
in Collier County.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that wasn't an ACLF. It
was some sort of homeless shelter.
MR. BELLOWS: This is part of -- that why they came in
traditional church use, they're filing for a PUD, the mix of uses.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let me ask then if someone
could come in and do just an ACLF on this property, would it be
consistent with the growth management plan based on density?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the density is 26 beds per acre or
units per acre. And that is consistent, because the code allows for
-- the growth management plan allows for that density for that type
of facility.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what they're asking for is
consistent with the growth management plan. The question is because
the PUD and not any conditional use requests; it's not a question of
accessory. It's a question of is this mix appropriate for its
location. Is that really the central request we're dealing with? MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Our growth management plan
answers that question yes, so it seems to me that settles it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure if it does
answer it yes.
Mr. Duane, you mentioned this is -- Mr. Duane, you
mentioned this is one of many items on a menu of potential uses down
the road. Would you object to removing this one item from the menu?
MR. DUANE: Well, I would, because it's the kind of a
facility that we think can compliment the campus that we're trying to
-- that we're trying to provide here. We have worship. We have
education. We have child care. We have a school. We have a
conference center. And it's the kind of use that we think could be
integrated well with those kinds of use, albeit it may never be
constructed, but we want to keep the opportunity open to have it.
We've limited it to 50 beds. We're a hundred-acre tract. We have
restrictive standards that are more restrictive than you would
typically find in other zoning districts. So my answer to you is I
think it's an appropriate location, and it can be a compatible use for
this property. Now, I think we're only looking at 50 beds on perhaps
an acre or two of our almost hundred-acre site, so it is by no means a
principal component of this project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I ask a question, Mr.
Bellows?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Mr. Hancock's next.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just going to say and offer
an option. The First Baptist Church has a history of consistency in
this community. They've been here a while. They continue to grow.
It's a very strong church. So my question is -- and we -- we talked
about this recently on a day-care facility. If there is going to be
an ACLF use on the property, we would like -- I think this board in
the past has said that it must be noted that it will be owned and
operated by the church, that we're not talking about something that
can be broken away and sold to someone as a commercial venture outside
the church. I think the history of the First Baptist Church in this
town -- you know, I would be more comfortable knowing that this would
be related with the church, owned and operated by the church and not
sold as a commercial venture to someone else. Could we at least have
that assurance today? I'm not sure if that will answer Commissioner
Constantine's question but --
MR. DUANE: I can count to one, two, three, and I --
I'll be happy to make that modification if that's the pleasure of the
board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And as an option, we have in the
past on some PUDs taken some uses and really placed them in a
conditional-use status in the PUD that should you decide to do them,
you would -- they would require board approval at a later date. And,
again, that's merely an option if you weren't willing to look at the
first one, so I wanted to mention that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you put that option in, I
can support the motion, but I can't otherwise. And I fully support
the church, the school facility, the childcare facility, and all of
that. But I'm not comfortable with this component if we put that in
as a conditional use --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- stipulation that any ACLF that
operates will be owned and operated by the church --
MR. BELLOWS: The Wilderness PUD has residential and a
commercial tract, and in part of that commercial tract there is an
ACLF approved very similar to this concept.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But not only the church owned
and operated, but have it return like a conditional use type item as
you mentioned.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's for my comfort level. I
don't know about the rest of the board. But short of that, I can't
support it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Duane, a couple of the board
members are expressing a desire to sort of be consistent with what we
have done in the past on some PUDs with certain uses that we -- we
wanted a further examination of in the future. And that is to ask you
to come back if -- if, indeed, you do at some point in the future want
to put in the ACLF, to ask -- to ask you to come back for a further
approval at that time. Would that be acceptable?
MR. DUANE: That would be acceptable.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had one more question, if I
may, quickly. Mr. Bellows, did you receive any letters or phone calls
of objection on this application? MR. BELLOWS: None.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's important, because there
are some residences nearby, and I'm really happy to see that's not the
case.
MR. DUANE: Mr. Hancock, we met with the adjoining
residential property owners.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a feeling you might have
done that.
MR. DUANE: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: We just had one little comment from the
property owner to the south. He was concerned about possible spraying
of crops to the orange grove to the south that may affect this
project. With the typical setbacks and the dwellings and the Walden
Oaks being closer than some of the proposed buildings here would be,
they'd be put on notice that residents within -- or businesses within
this -- or church uses within this PUD that could possibly be spraying
that could affect this, that no spraying would -- or church operation
would affect the spraying on the property to the south.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Miss Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You'll waive?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question. Mr. Duane,
can you explain to me the phasing of this project? When is it your
intention to put in which part of the various uses?
MR. DUANE: Phase one will consist of the -- of the
church. That's going to be the principal use, which is going to be
confined to the center portion of the project. And we anticipate that
being constructed sometime after the year 2000. We -- we used a
ten-year window in our traffic study. It's possible if our
fund-raising efforts exceed our expectations, that we might move that
up a few years, but that's the principal focus of -- of phase one,
along with the educational and administration building. Now, phase
two, the buildout will include an expansion of the -- of the preschool
facility and the student school.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: An expansion?
MR. DUANE: Right. We're going to have childcare in
phase one also, which will be limited to -- we estimate 100 children
will be in phase one also along with construction of the principal
facility.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I guess what's crossing my
mind is a couple weeks ago we heard a petition similar to this, and we
required in the end that the -- that the church be constructed before
the day-care center. Is that your intention?
MR. DUANE: Oh, I can assure you that that will be the
case, and we have no problem with agreeing with that stipulation.
That will be the building that we would be using, the principal
building --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. DUANE: -- so that would go hand in hand.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, you have none.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If not, I'll close the public
hearing. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we
approve with the stipulations as outlined by Commissioner Hancock with
the conditional use on the ACLF within the PUD, the approval based on
consideration of the urban residential use that's allowed under the
future land use element map, and that seems consistent, and also there
are no level of service problems with the project. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews had brought
up a question of making sure the church is constructed prior to
opening of a day care.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the motion to
include that stipulation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We had also talked of the --
having assurances within the development order that the ACLF and the
childcare center when built will be owned and operated by the church,
just to have assurances that that will be true. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Would the motion maker --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The ACLF will have to come back at a
future meeting, and that will take care of that automatically.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It will be operated by the
church, Mr. Duane?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll include that as part of
the motion. I think conditional use, we can take care of that later
by the board, but I'll include that as part of the motion as well if
petitioner is comfortable with that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a very lengthy and
amended motion. Perhaps Commissioner Constantine, if you could
restate it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move to approve the items and
the stipulations including a conditional use on the ACLF that the
day-care and childcare facilities will be owned and operated by the
church -- and what was the other one?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The church be constructed --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The day-care facilities will
not be built until the church is first built.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Second?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
There are none.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 96-3, RE PETITION PUD-90-1(1), KAREN BISHOP OF PHS, INC., OF
NAPLES, REPRESENTING GEORGE H. WERNER REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS RICHLAND PUD FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846)
AND C.R. 951, CONSISTING OF 150 ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED
Item 12(B)(2), petition 90-1, sub 1.
MR. NINO: Good morning, Commissioners. Ron Nino for
the record with your community development staff. The petition that
is before you essentially has us revisiting the Richland PUD, which
was approved in 1990. And the focus or the thrust of this amendment
really has to do with removing the requirement to build a specific
distribution of single-family versus multifamily housing units.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, before you go any farther on
this one, let me -- let me just say that I am going to abstain on this
petition. I have a business relationship with Mr. Werner in another
capacity not dealing with this land. But in order to avoid any
perception of a conflict, I will abstain on this one and let Mr.
Hancock run this item.
ACTING CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: The existing or the currently approved PUD
requires that 130 of 650 dwelling units be single family. This
petition, the amended petition, retains the 650 dwelling units but has
no limitation as to the mix of single family versus multifamily. The
-- that issue would be determined obviously by market conditions at
the time that the developer proceeds to go ahead with this PUD.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Nino, that -- that change is
one that I've seen in all of the PUDs that I've approved since I've
been on the board this past year. That's just something that has
become more typical is that we allow the market to control what the
mix is, but we put a cap on the maximum number of units? MR. NINO: That's exactly correct, Commissioner.
ACTING CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the units in this petition
are not increasing; they're staying the same? MR. NINO: They're not increasing.
The other element of this petition is that it has a
commercial component, because it is located within the -- an activity
center at the intersection of Rich -- of 951 and Immokalee Road. The
original PUD allowed 150,000 square feet of commercial floor space.
The existing -- the amended PUD would retain that same amount of
commercial floor space, namely 150,000 square feet. However, because
that petition predates the current LDC code which references -- which
references SIC codes and has a use list, the current -- the proposed
PUD adopts the -- purports to adopt the C-4 requirements from the
current Land Development Code which references SIC code numbers.
Staff in conjunction with the petitioner did refine the
C-4 uses to eliminate some uses that had outdoor storage as a major
component of their operation. We didn't think, quite frankly, that
that was the kind of use that that intersection ought to be put to.
ACTING CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the more noxious C-4 uses
have been removed?
MR. NINO: Exactly. This petition, however, does
introduce a nursing home or an ACLF into the residential tracts. And
our concern was that the location of a nursing home not impact
single-family housing if that decision is made. And we've introduced
into the PUD some spacing requirements for ACLF facilities should
they, in fact, occur in this development by requiring transitions on
multifamily housing.
Also the standard with our -- also as is usual with our
concern for the mix of single-family and multifamily housing, again,
we put in some spatial requirements that would insure that lo and
behold somebody doesn't build a bunch of multifamily structures in
between two single-family housing units.
The petition was consistent with the growth management
plan in 1990 and remains consistent in its amended form. The Planning
Commission reviewed this petition and unanimously eight to nothing
recommended its approval to this board. No person spoke in opposition
to the petition or have received any -- or have we received any
communications in opposition to the petition.
ACTING CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Nino.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need you to -- excuse me.
I need you to help me with the -- via the SIC code. What's -- how
redundant is that? What's in some of these categories? Item number 5
on page 36 of our agenda item, automotive repair and services, that's
group 7542.
MR. NINO: That is car washes only.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Item number 7, business
services, and there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 --
there's about 20 groups in this.
MR. NINO: That's advertising, credit reporting,
photocopying businesses, commercial photo types of business, arts and
studio supplies, reporting services, medical equipment rental,
equipment rental and leasing, a whole host of computer program
services, photofinishing labs, and then a miscellaneous business.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'm -- that's fine.
Item 19, miscellaneous repair services, there are five different
groups.
MR. NINO: Radio and television repair, refrigeration
and air condition repair, electronic repair, water and clock -- watch
and clock repair shop, printers or upholstering.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Finally personal
services, item 24.
MR. NINO: Laundry, coin laundries, other laundry
services, a photo -- photographic studio, beauty shop, barber shop,
shoe repair shop and miscellaneous services, generally in that
intensity of use.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any more questions for staff
from the board? Is the petitioner here? Miss Bishop, do you have
anything else you'd like to add to the group?
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop. I'm an agent for the owner.
No, thank you. We're happy with everything.
ACTING CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for the
petitioner? Mr. Dotrill, do we have any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, you don't.
ACTING CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public
hearing. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yup.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
None, motion carries four to zero. And we welcome back
Commissioner Norris. Not bad for my first one.
Item #12B4
ORDINANCE 96-4, RE PETITION PUD-95-13, BARBARA H. CAWLEY OF WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING IHMOKALEE HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A-HHO" TO "PUD" TO BE
KNOWN AS GARDEN WALK VILLAGE PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
SIDE OF S.R. 29 AND OPPOSITE FARM WORKER VILAGE - ADOPTED WITH
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll move along then to item
12 (B) (3) , PUD-95-3.
MR. DORRILL: I believe that's been continued, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right.
12(B)(4) then, petition PUD-95-13.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Before -- before he speaks, Mr.
Chairman, am I right from a parliamentary perspective that I have a
motion on the floor that was tabled from the last presentation?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, did we table or continue?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe we tabled.
MR. WEIGEL: My recollection here operatively will come
to the same result, but I believe that -- someone help me. I think we
continued.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't you make a motion to take it
off the table.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's exactly what I was going
to do. I move to take it from the table. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
untable. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And, if I may, at the time I had
made a motion to approve subject to installation of a sidewalk. And
I'd just like to withdraw that motion at this time, and we'll start
fresh today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay. For the record, Ray Bellows of
current planning staff presenting petition PUD-95-13. Barbara Cawley
of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek is requesting a fezone of a 17-acre
site on agriculture with a mobile home overlay to PUD to be known as
the Garden Walk Village PUD.
Petitioner proposes a 204-unit multifamily development
on property located on the southwest side of State Route 29 and
opposite the Farm Worker's Village development. The site is
designated NC on the Immokalee master plan which permits densities up
to 12 units per acre but also allows for commercial and schools and
other government facilities. The proposed four hundred -- or 204-unit
development is at 12 units per acre. So, therefore, it is consistent
with the Immokalee master plan.
The traffic analysis indicates that the trips are to be
about 1,220 trips per day which is -- exceeds the 5 percent
significance test on State Route 29, however, will not lower the level
of service on that road. The Environmental Advisory Board determined
that the project will not adversely affect any sensitive area.
The property is adjacent to -- the properties to the
west are also designated NC which allows for the same 12 units per
acre. The property to the east, Farm Worker's Village, is zoned RMF-6
which allows for 6 units per acre, though, predominantly it's been
developed at 4 units per acre.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Bellows, we heard this petition a
couple of weeks ago. We don't really need to rehash the entire
thing. If there's something new -- MR. BELLOWS: No, nothing new.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not all of us heard --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I believe is why it's here
today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please continue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, may I ask, were you able to
review the record? Are you familiar with --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I read it. I did not watch
the videotape. I know the facts -- facts part of it as you read it,
if you can add it in color.
MR. BELLOWS: It is consistent with the Immokalee master
plan. The -- it's within the neighborhood center which permits those
densities and those uses. It's -- actually the growth management plan
encourages those densities in that area as a mix with commercial which
is also allowed in there. It's not too far from the Immokalee
industrial district at the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What did you say about that? It
encourages those densities in that area? Would you repeat that? I
think that's really important. What encourages --
MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't expressly say encourage, but it
does permit up to those densities. In my conversations with the
long-range staff, they are looking for bonuses to get development in
those areas and mixed with commercial, somewhat like the activity
centers and neighborhood centers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought. Thanks.
MR. BELLOWS: The PUD document also allows for building
heights of three stories, which is consistent with the RMF-12
district, which allows for taller structures. This project is similar
to other developments in Collier County. It's not applying for
affordable housing density bonus as if it would. If it was not in the
NC district, they would have to strike an agreement with our housing
and urban improvement department to get bonus densities to get up to
the densities they're asking for. This is consistent with the
Immokalee master plan, so they don't need that affordable housing
density.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you tell me again the
uses and permitted uses on the north side, south side, and west side
of the property?
MR. BELLOWS: Okay. To the north is -- as far as State
Route 29, Farm Worker's Village, and that folds over to the east
side. To the southeast is residential zoned RSF-4. To the south is
undeveloped active -- actively farmland. And to the west is
undeveloped zoned agriculture but within the neighborhood center.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: The Collier County Planning Commission
reviewed and approved this petition on January 18th and recommended
approval by a five to one vote. That concludes my presentation. Any
questions?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I'm -- I'm the
person that caused this to be heard again the second time. And -- and
I do want to say primarily the reason for the no vote three weeks ago
was density, height and -- and the fact that I had some questions that
I couldn't get answered in the short period of time from the -- when
they first appeared. We all received a letter from the fire district
that morning addressing fire flows and quality of life issues. I've
since met with the fire district, fire chief, and while his -- his
concerns about fire flow can easily be addressed, and I believe he's
already met with the developer to address those, his major concerns
are really life and safety issues and -- and essentially evacuation of
a building in the middle of the night that has 36 units in it possibly
and -- and you're talking 108 people at 3 a.m., which could be a
difficult thing, but proper training of his officers will -- will
accomplish that.
The other concern that I had, though, has not really
been resolved, and that is dealing with the water-sewer district. I
did not have at the time, three weeks ago, a Boyle Engineering report
which does -- which did exist, but I did not have it, and I've since
been through it and reviewed it. And our -- our executive summary
says that the water-sewer -- Immokalee water-sewer collection and
transmission facilities are deemed adequate. But this Boyle
Engineering report indicates that the water-sewer district is going to
have to spend approximately a half a million dollars to provide the
services to this development. And I -- I'd like to see something in
the development order which will meet the problem here, because this
particular water-sewer district does not assess impact fees. It does
not assess capacity fees. And this half a million dollars will be
borne by the rate payers.
MR. MIHALIC: If we may address that, Commissioners. We
just applied for a community development block grant funding on behalf
of Immokalee water and sewer for another area. We've given them
approximately a half a million dollar grant to assist to pay for the
infrastructure in that area for water and sewer. And that should
assist in freeing up those additional payees that are coming on line,
and their rates will be able for them to do the capital improvements
in other areas of the district.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. You just raised another
question then. Because in my discussion with the water-sewer
district, they have recently issued 4.3 million dollars worth of
bonds, and they have recently received 1.4 or 1.5 million dollars
worth of grants --
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to improve the infrastructure
in their five-year plan. This is not in their five-year plan. It's
in addition to their five-year plan. And at this point the 4 million
dollar bond issue that's been issued to make these improvements is
already going to generate a 15 percent rate increase effective this
May. And I -- I would just like to see something in this plan that
addresses the half a million dollars.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, we're restrained
somewhat on what criteria we can approve or not approve a PUD. And
while a valid concern, I'm trying to figure out if it falls within our
authority to decline a PUD.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, fine. Miss Student may want to add
to my comment, but the approval of the PUD conceivably could go
forward with a stipulation which, in essence, restates what has to
occur anyway. And that is that the petitioner, the owner, developer,
will have to obtain in the permitting process certificates of adequate
facilities which may in part respond to the question raised concerning
the Immokalee water and sewer district.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, Mr. Weigel, that's every --
nobody -- you can't build a house without that. I mean -- MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that would be an absurd
condition in my judgment since we have ordinances already in place for
this issue. And I'm terribly concerned that we're not going to see
any more affordable housing projects in this county if we don't stop
throwing up roadblocks to them. And that is a concern. It's a valid
concern. It will be addressed by the ordinances of the county. We
need to apologize to this developer for the delay and approve his
project and thank him and hope that he'll bring more back. And as far
as the rate payers, the people in Immokalee are begging us for this
project. Please improve our community. I think they're willing to
pay rates if that's what it takes. They're here saying please approve
it. We need to stop putting up roadblocks and approve this project.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, again, my
question is it's my understanding we already require that as part of
ordinance so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's the problem?
MS. STUDENT: If I might, because this is a private
provider, they don't fall under our regular AFCO process. I think it
would be appropriate perhaps to put some conditional language in the
development order that before they could go further in the process --
and perhaps this is something that could be discussed with the
developer's representatives here today -- that there be satisfaction
that there is adequate capacity to meet the water and sewer --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They can't -- they could get a
permit without adequate facilities if we don't put that in? I don't
think -- if that's a gap in our ordinances, we need to address it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We may be a little out of -- out
of the context here.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have a letter from the
water and sewer district objecting to this project? MS. CAWLEY: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the water and sewer
district that's responsible for providing service has not objected.
The second point is that same water and sewer district has decided to
-- instead of charging impact fees in their district, they have
decided to finance future system expansion on the rate payers instead
of impact fees. So the idea that any expansion of the system is going
to impact the rate payers is their decided method of operation.
Whether it's a single-family home, a multifamily complex, a commercial
building, the rate payers are going to finance the expansion of the
system regardless of the project. So we don't have an objection from
them. We are -- you know, this is their normal method of operation.
So for us to object to their chosen method of operation and this
project's impact on it I think is -- is not our responsibility.
That's left to them. If they have a problem with this expansion, I
would assume somebody after this has been heard now a second time
would be here telling us that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't hear it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm looking from our legal
staff for a yes or no answer. If there is a problem with providing
water and sewer service, will that be picked up somewhere in the
permitting process even if we don't stipulate it today?
MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes. I think Miss Student's
going to address that further.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes will do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes will do. We don't need any
amplification on it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As much as we love lawyers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do we have any speakers?
MR. DORRILL: We have a number of them. Mr. Kelly, if I
could have you come forward, please, sir, and then, Reverend Allen, if
I could have you please stand by.
MS. CAWLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Barbara
Cawley with Wilson, Miller here representing the petitioner. One of
our team members would like to also speak to you first, if you
wouldn't mind. Mr. Thomas is here, and he drove in from Immokalee and
would like to speak to you first. We didn't sign him up because he is
one of our team members, so if we could indulge your time for a
moment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kelly, if you will stand by for just a
moment. Mr. Thomas.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Getting a little crowded over
there, folks.
MR. THOMAS: Yes, Commissioners. The hat I have on
today is the executive director of the Collier County Housing
Authority. The Collier County Housing Authority has worked with many
private developers who are going to build affordable housing in the
Immokalee community. This developer came to us several months ago to
talk about building some housing across the street. The housing
authority has developed a nonprofit arm called Collier County Housing
Authority Land Acquisition and Development. That's been around for
about four years, five years. They are a partner -- I'm the
secretary-treasurer of that particular board, and we are partners with
Roy Cronacher Development forming a new Immokalee housing partnership
to put these things together. So as a part of that other package, I
officially endorse the building of that particular project. Okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Now, Mr. Kelly, if you would, please, sir,
and then Reverend Allen, if I could have you stand by.
MR. KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commission
members. My name is John Kelly. I'm a retired attorney admitted to
practice in the State of Florida presently staying here in Naples. I
don't claim to have detailed familiarity with the housing plans for
Immokalee. However, my business affairs do take me to Immokalee with
some frequency. And considering the -- the appalling housing
conditions under which many people in Immokalee are now forced to
live, I would urge the commission to view this petition with Christian
compassion as well as the necessary legalistic and administrative
practices. Thanks very much.
MR. DORRILL: Reverend Allen and then, Mr. Lee, if I
could have you work your way to the front, please, sir. Reverend
Allen, good morning.
REVEREND ALLEN: Good morning. Good morning,
Commissioners. Thank you for giving me a few minutes of your time.
I'm here in support of the project that is -- I need to give my name;
right? My name is Howard Allen. I'm president of CURE, Collier
(inaudible) for Rights Equality. And we thought we had this made last
-- a couple of weeks ago when this came before the board. You
noticed I didn't even show up, because I was so sure it was going to
pass, so I didn't feel I needed to come down. But this morning I'm
here and urging you to pass this. As has already been stated, if we
don't allow this developer who is willing to spend 17 million dollars
to put some affordable housing --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not 17 million, sir. It's
somewhere between 7 and 8 million.
REVEREND ALLEN: Okay. I have to fault the paper for
that then.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
REVEREND ALLEN: So that's what I -- but anyway,
whatever the amount of money that he's going to spend to develop this
project would be good for Immokalee. Now, I've also heard that it's
not good for the south side. But if you take it and move it north,
then it's okay to have it up near the hospital. I mean, that's how we
get slums and other -- other neighborhoods that's not fit to live in
simply because we take everything good and put it on one side of town,
and then when the bars and clubs and all of these other things come
in, then we put them on the south side of town, and then we create a
slum, and then we get the big fog lights out there so everybody know
where the slums is when they're coming into town at night. But if
they start to develop the south side along with the north side and
improving -- those people who are living in those rundown houses can
move out and into something decent, then you'll soon see those houses
begin to disappear and the whole area then become an area that when
you bring tourism -- that's my concern. When tourists come to town
and other peoples come, you take them on those big bus tours. They
never carry through the south side of town. They kind of go around
the edge and take the other way out and around, because they don't
want them to see this side of town because the -- our government and
the landowners haven't done anything to improve this. So we don't
want this blight in the tourists' mind when they leave and go back to
where they are. We want to think of this as a nice, green metropolis,
and over in that metropolis you have something that's disgusting that
you don't want seen. So I urge you all in your vote today that you
vote to approve the project, and then any other that come along that's
good for the south side, that you also vote on them, too. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Now Mr. Lee and then Mr. Matthews.
MR. LEE: First, I'd like to thank the commissioners for
allowing me this privilege. I won't say very much because I think you
all have a much bigger task before you, it seems like, from the
audience.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you say your name for the
record?
MR. LEE: Yes, sir. My name is Albert Lee, just a
concerned citizen from Immokalee.
What I would like to do is direct most of my little
speech to Miss Matthews who happens to be our representative from that
particular area. We certainly welcome good things perhaps that may
come to our community. We certainly hope that you can find and afford
the time to at least say one time this may be good. I have seen --
again, and I stated that in the last meeting, we were concerned then
about three-story buildings. And there wasn't no three-story
buildings in Naples. So we're not going to worry about how tall or
how what -- you have to worry about density and all of those things.
But look at where we hope we will go and hope that you and the rest of
the commissioners -- which I don't see very much opposition from the
rest of them and not too much from you this morning. So let's get on
about passing it and hope that we can live with it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As I stated earlier, my
opposition three weeks ago was that there were unanswered questions
that I needed to get answered, and I wasn't being afforded the
opportunity. I have since answered most of them and have a few minor
things that I'd like to put in the order.
MR. MATTHEWS: Good morning. My name is Joseph
MAtthews. I come to you this morning, as I did a few weeks ago when
this matter came before the commissioners, representing the Immokalee
Water and Sewer District and the Immokalee Fire Control District, two
of which I've heard Mrs. MAtthews talk to you about. But the fire
chief, I think, and Mrs. MAtthews had a conversation. She made the
assertion earlier that it was with the fire district, which I would
tend to believe that that suggests the whole board. The whole board
has not heard this particular project or talked about this particular
project in terms of the fire safety concerns that the chief has. I
don't differ with the chief really that in the sense that, yes,
someone would have to be concerned about it. We have to look at it
and determine best how we overcome those fears and those concerns and
all. But aside from that, I think normal training that I heard
someone talk about earlier -- you put together the training and the --
the proper sequence of machinery, all of those things, and we
certainly come over that.
As far as the Immokalee Water and Sewer District, again,
two weeks ago or three weeks ago when this matter first came before
you, as I reported then and I'll report again, this matter came before
the Immokalee Water and Sewer Board Tuesday a week ago. The board
without a comprehensive engineering study was not able to discuss this
issue to a great deal obviously because the two engineers, our
engineer, Boyle Engineering, and the engineer for this specific
project, has not sat down to determine exactly what it was going to
take to put potable water there and obviously take away the wastewater
away from that project.
Also along with that the Florida Department of
Transportation was expanding a length of the highway there, so there's
a lot of things to take place in a normal conversation with the boards
and all. And without that there's no way nobody can determine what
it's going to actually cost.
Talking to the engineer, Mr. Kernrellette from Boyle
Engineering, that was the worst-case scenario that could happen, that
five hundred thousand. In fact, the figure I heard was three to five
hundred thousand. That was the very worst-case scenario. There was
not a comprehensive study done no place other than our office. Until
we can actually sit down and talk with Immokalee water and sewer now,
with the engineers from this specific project, determine what it's
actually going to take from our standpoint or from their standpoint,
there's no way that we can actually define the costs. But again, my
understanding, the concerns that we have here is the permitting
process and which the district themselves always give a -- a letter of
service. In other words, we can actually -- adequate service to a
project. Those kinds of things take place much later in the project.
Again, I'm not here speaking on behalf of the board.
Again, I am in support of the project as a business manager of the
community and resident of the community. I support this project
wholeheartedly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to -- is that the end
of the public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then if you'll close the public
hearing, I have a motion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that she's telling you what
to do or anything.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm anxious to make this
motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I will close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval of the
petition subject only to the conditions that are set forth in the PUD
that came out of the planning commission with a recommendation of
approval.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Be -- before you call the
motion, I would like to discuss one or two more items with Mrs. Cawley
and -- and we talked about them in the last 24 hours or so. And one
of them was aligning the entrance to this project with the
southernmost entrance to Farm Worker Village so that we don't have --
well, let me say this; there's enough traffic going south on 29 and
turning right into the project to cause a decel lane that has to be
constructed. It stands to reason that if there's that much traffic
turning right, there's going to be that much traffic turning left and
going north on 29 out of the project. And the southernmost entrance
for Farm Worker Village is around three or three hundred and fifty
feet to the north. And my question is, is there a way that we can
align these two entrances or exit accesses so that we reduce the
possibility for accidents, people turning left onto a 60-mile-an-hour
roadway, 350 feet away, there is somebody turning right. And I'm a
little bit concerned about safety issues on this and don't want to
create accidents.
MS. CAWLEY: The problem with doing that obviously is
that we don't own the land.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that.
MS. CAWLEY: The land directly adjacent from that access
into Farm Worker's Village is owned by another entity, and we have no
control over whether or not we can obtain easements or get access or
buy more land from that entity. I think that that's -- it's sort of
out of our control. What we can do, of course, is work with DOT to
make it the safest entrance possible and -- and move it as far south
as possible so that we can avoid the problem. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MS. CAWLEY: Right now it's just sort of out of our
control. We'd like to be able to fix it, but I don't know how to fix
it at this particular moment.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand there's going to be
site -- site changes and stuff as the project comes forward. But I
just want to put on the record that with the distance between these
two projects opposite on the road being only 30 feet and it's a
55-mile-an-hour speed zone, not 60, but people travel 70, you know,
350 feet from somebody having turned left and accelerating doesn't
give them a lot of time to do something about somebody who's recently
come right out of Farm Worker Village onto 29. And I'd like the
petitioner to -- to try to address it, either put more distance
between them or align them.
MS. CAWLEY: We -- we will -- we will do our best to put
the maximum distance we can between them. Thatws not a problem. We
can work with that in our site planning very easily by just moving --
moving the access road as far south as we can possibly get it. I
donlt know that therels anyway --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Therels a natural point that if
you moved in a southern direction to get away from it, lining up right
there and moving the building over. Thatls a couple hundred feet.
Thatls -- that can happen.
MS. CAWLEY: Therels ways of adjusting that. That
shouldnlt be a problem.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fine. That will address that
concern that I have.
MS. CAWLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the last one deals with
density bonuses. I understand that therels no density bonuses
available in a NC district. MS. CAWLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But Iim asking the petitioner to
agree that density bonuses will not be asked for in the future.
MS. CAWLEY: We will agree to that. Therels no problem.
Weld have to get a comp. plan amendment in order to get any more
density in that particular location, and we donlt have any desire to
do that.
Welre trying to get this project done quickly. We need
to get into the cycle to get the tax syndication money, because we
think this is the last year that it may be available. So we donlt
have time to go into a comprehensive plan amendment. We have no
interest in doing that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, with the assurances that
the water-sewer district board is aware and is already working on this
and the fact that the project has to get adequate public facility
certificates before it can go forward, I have no problem supporting
the motion. All the problems that I had three weeks ago have been
addressed.
MS. CAWLEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, I just want to state for
the record --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Iim not chairman.
MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Itls Mr. Chairman.
MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I told you it would happen.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to state for the
record that at the time this project would need a C.O., they would
have to have other ordinances. There would have to be water and sewer
to serve the project. And typically a case goes to private providers.
I understand from staff that at the SDP level a letter from that
provider is provided indicating that the capacity will be available.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for that. And with that
Iill call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
There are none.
Letls take a short break, and weill be right back.
MR. CUYLER: Thank you, Commissioners.
(A short break was held.)
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 96-66, RE PETITION V-96-1, MARVIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
REPRESENTING FRANKLIN AND DEBRA NORTON REQUESTING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO 20 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 290 SAYBROOK COURT, LOT 9, MADISON MEADOWS SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, let's -- let's
get back in session here, please. Thank you. Thank you very much.
We're ready to start item 13(A)(1), petition V-96-1. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record, community
development services, presenting petition V-96-1. This is a petition
requesting a variance of 5 feet to a required rear yard of 25 feet.
As the executive summary points out, to a large extent staff is
culpable inasmuch as staff approved a site plan with the issuance of
the building permit that, in fact, showed the building within 20 feet
of the property line. The -- this issue was -- came to light at the
spot survey when another staff member noted that -- that location was
inconsistent with the requirement for that zoning district by 5 feet.
The Planning Commission reviewed this petition and unanimously
recommended approval of the variance. You'll note that the resolution
acknowledges the grant of the variance to only a small portion of the
building. The building takes on an L shape at the back, and that
variance would only recognize the long side of the lake.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, does the staff error relieve
the developer or builder of the responsibility of -- of conforming
with the statutes, the laws?
MR. NINO: I hate to answer legal questions. Perhaps --
MR. WEIGEL: No. The answer is no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel said the answer is
~o?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The answer is no. Any other questions
from the board?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the petitioner here?
MR. NINO: I don't know if the petitioner is here. He's
from Cape Coral. He said he was going to monitor the proceedings, see
if he could be here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just curious if there
was an explanation why it was designed that way to start with and --
MR. NINO: Staff report points out that this developer,
they could have complied. The house is not larger than the
combination of the front and rear setbacks. The building is set back
5 feet more than the ordinance requires, so it's not a blatant
situation where somebody is building a house that's larger than the
setbacks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: At what stage of construction are we?
MR. NINO: We're at tie beam.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Tie beam?
MR. NINO: (Nodded head.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers, Mr.
HcNees, on this item?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's on the property that
it impacts? Mr. Nino, what's on the property that it impacts directly
adjacent to it?
MR. NINO: The rear yard faces east, and to the east you
have undeveloped land at this point in time. Matter of fact, you have
high tension power lines and, quite frankly, the likelihood of -- of
shallow lots in that area is -- is very remote, in my opinion. So --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are the power lines directly
adjacent to the property?
MR. NINO: No, they're not. They're some distance from
-- a couple hundred feet from that lot. But I suggest to you that
the configuration of land along there, one, we don't know what's going
to happen to it; and, two, if it is developed, they will likely be
very long, very deep lots.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there any platted lots behind
there at this moment?
MR. NINO: No, there aren't.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the past we've had this
discussion, and really whoever pulls the permit, it's their
responsibility to make sure that the building setbacks comply with
what the code sets forward. And I'm always reluctant to relieve them
of that responsibility regardless of the stage of construction.
Because we don't know what's going to be behind this,
I'm kind of at a crossroads on this one. Again, we hate to penalize
the homeowner but, you know, this is something the builder should have
-- have caught. And I don't have enough knowledge of this individual
neighborhood to know if -- if this is going to seem out of place or
not. But I'm inclined not to support the variance.
MR. NINO: Well, we've had no communications of
opposition. Notices were sent out to property owners within 300 feet
of the property. No one has expressed any concern.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me go ahead and close the public
hearing. Continue the discussion.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have a
question. You're saying that there are no platted subdivisions to the
east of this. Wasn't there a fezone that we did a year and a half or
so ago that was between Turnberry and the power lines? And it may not
have extended this far north, but there's something there that was
zoned, and I'm trying to remember the name of it, Charting something
or other.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was south of there.
MR. NINO: My recollection was that there --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just wondering how close it
comes to this.
MR. NINO: I don't know of any development that I'm --
you know, during my time with the county suggests that there's been
any zoning approvals in that area. I could be wrong, but I don't -- I
don't recall any.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- I think a couple of points
here. On the negative side it is still the builder's responsibility
to make sure that the house is properly sited. On the other side,
though, there -- there was a mistake made by our staff that -- that
kind of helped this along. And there are at the present time no
platted lots directly adjacent to this lot. If -- if there are to be
in the future, then the -- whoever was bringing a petition to replat
would -- would know that this variance was already in existence and
would be able to accommodate it that way. So there's -- there are
positives and negatives here on this one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You make a valid point. If it
weren't for the staff mistake, I would have zero inclination to
proceed with this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur, but because our
staff did play a role in it, at the very least, helping it along -- I
have some -- for the homeowner.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The public hearing is closed so
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- if there are no speakers,
I'll make a motion that we approve petition number V-96-1 based on the
discussion we've had.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
There being none, we'll move on to item 13(A)(2).
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 96-67, RE PETITION CU-95-21, R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG, VAN
ASSENDERP, VARNADOE, P.A., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 2.6.35.6.3 IN THE
ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR A 180 FOOT HONOPOLE COHMUNICATION TOWER FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE EAST OF INTERSTATE 75, SOUTH OF
AND ADJACENT TO IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), CONSISTING OF 1.31 + ACRES -
ADOPTED
MR. MILK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting petition CU-95-21. Petitioner
is requesting a conditional use in order to construct a new 180-foot
monopole communication tower to replace the existing 55-foot guide
tower that currently exists at the North Naples Fire Control and
Rescue District's fire station and emergency medical facilities
building. The district intends to provide an added height which would
increase its effective radius for emergency broadcast. It would
provide a permanent mount for its radio repeater system, and it would
allow on the top of the monopole a fixed location for a whip-type
antenna for cellular communications for Cellular One of Southwest
Florida.
The subject property has been in existence for
approximately six years with little complaint from the surrounding
area. Staff has a letter from St. Honica's Episcopal Church directly
abutting and east of the site which is in support of the petition. On
January the 18th the Collier County Planning Commission voted seven to
zero to recommend approval. There were no letters of opposition or
any inquiries of opposition to this --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
MR. MILK: -- particular project.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The existing tower is 50
feet; is that correct?
MR. MILK: About 55 feet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And this is proposed to be as
high as 180 feet?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it's not identical. We're
not simply replacing one with another. We're almost four times as
large.
MR. MILK: About three and a half times as large,
right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. The -- I'm just
reading here. It says the tower is similar in design to a common
light pole, 180 feet high, common light pole.
MR. MILK: I guess the reference to the interstate off
ramps, they have the large light poles.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bryan is kind of a big guy, so
maybe this --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think at Joe Robbie Stadium
they have 180-foot light poles.
Will this in any way potentially interfere with TV or
radio or telephone communications? And I ask that only because this
past weekend as I walked around the tournament, I know the ESPN folks
were having some difficulty because of a couple of towers that were
located near Lely Resort. And, of course, they're not an everyday
type use. But I'm wondering for those who live in the area, does this
potentially --
MR. MILK: There's two things that happen. Cellular
industries have their own frequency range that's direct line of sight,
so that will not impact with any radio or TV transmissions. Radio
frequencies from the fire station is on a separate band, and they're
going to use a dish-type antenna and a repeater system and a filter
system to eliminate that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who's they're?
MR. MILK: There are two different frequencies, two
different systems, two different precautions for filtering and not
affecting the nearby TV and radio transmissions to the private
homeowners.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two more questions. Is the
tower prohibited from renting space to anyone other than the fire
department and Cell One, or can they add additional antennas for
whomever may need it in the future?
MR. MILK: The way it's proposed is that there's going
to be a whip antenna on the top for Cellular One, possibly a 32-inch
dish radio antenna for the fire station, and a mount for the repeater
system on the tower, and that would be all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And that is limited by
the scope of what we're being asked to approve here to those? MR. MILK: To those folks only.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And then the final
question. I assume there's some sort of lighting -- FAA requirements
for lighting of a 180-foot tower either by strobe or the red lights or
what have you?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do those in any way -- I
realize this is estates property; I'm familiar with the location. But
do those in any way have impact on any surrounding residents? I know
with the state's tower over by Radio Road, we had an incident with
their little strobe light just happened to be blinking right in
someone's back window.
MR. MILK: That is fairly obnoxious, and there's a
condition in here to provide a beacon instead of a strobe. The FAA,
by the way, did not require a light for this particular tower to be
lighted. Mosquito control asked that there would be a beacon on the
tower. Every time we do a communication tower in Collier County, the
FAA, airport authority, and the mosquito control district gets a copy
so they can plot them as they fly in their flight paths. They had
asked that it be lighted, and I talked to Ernie Paschard (phonetic) of
Cellular One. They are willing to put a beacon on the tower that is
not obnoxious to the adjacent properties and not a strobe.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Back to the interstate light
poles that resembles; they're at 1-75 and Immokalee Road up on the
interstate. Compared to Immokalee Road, what is the height of those
light poles so I can get some idea of what we're talking about? I
know they're very tall.
MR. MILK: They are very tall. I'm -- I don't know. I
have no idea.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A hundred feet?
MR. MILK: They're probably 150 feet.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One hundred fifty feet as viewed
from Immokalee Road?
MR. MILK: At Immokalee Road and at intersections, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So this tower is only 20 feet or
so taller?
MR. MILK: Very similar in height, yeah.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers on this
issue?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing.
Further discussion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
Being none, we'll move over to 13(A)(3), petition
V-95-29.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 96-68, PETITION V-95-29, HARK J. WOODWARD AND ANTHONY P.
PIRES, JR. OF WOODWARD, PIRES, ANDERSON & LOMBARDO, P.A., REPRESENTING
GBFC BEACH, LTD, A FLORDIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND PARCEL H-I, INC., A
FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A FC BEACH JOINT VENTURE, REQUESTING A SIDE
YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF 50% OF THE BUILDING
HEIGHT WITH A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 488 SOUTH
COLLIER BOULEVARD, MARCO ISLAND - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred
Reischl, planning services. This is a petition and its companion item
on a parcel of land on South Collier Boulevard that is irregularly
shaped created by a court order, and it's a 3.95-acre site. And
before I go further into my presentation, the petitioner has requested
to speak.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Petitioner.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, members of the board,
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reischl. My name is Anthony Pires, Junior, and I'm
with the law firm of Woodward, Pires, Anderson, and Lombardo. We are
here today representing the petitioner in these two matters, this item
and the next companion item.
Petition V-95-29, the variance petition, was carefully
evaluated by the staff after its submittal utilizing all of the
appropriate criteria under the Land Development Code. Staff concluded
and found and recommended to the Planning Commission that the variance
petition as filed be recommended for approval. The Planning
Commission after deliberations made a recommendation to this board by
a seven to one vote that petition V-95-29 be granted.
Petition CU-95-24 is a companion petition item. It's a
conditional use item. That, again, was carefully evaluated by staff
utilizing the Land Development Code criteria. And the staff
recommended to the Planning Commission and the Plan -- favorable
approval. The Planning Commission recommended for approval to this
board as the Board of Zoning Appeals said conditional use CU-95-24, a
conditional use for a private club on the same parcel of land. I
believe copies of the staff's recommendations and the Planning
Commission's recommendations are included as and made part of this
record.
After the Planning Commission's hearing, substantial
public opposition arose focusing initially as to the conditional use
request and then subsequently as to the variance request. The focus
of the concerns, as we understood them from some meetings that we had
and some various correspondence that we saw in communications and
discussions that we had with particularly Commissioner Norris, were
issues concerning traffic generation on Marco Island, beach
overcrowding on Marco Island, and other issues concerning -- of
concern. Although we felt that in some situations their numbers were
overstated as to the number of people that would use the facilities,
although we felt that the numbers were overstated as to the impact on
the roads and beaches, we internally looked hard and worked hard to
try to accommodate these concerns, those raised by the public and
those raised by Commissioner Norris.
While the uses outlined in the conditional use
application for a private club, we believe, are appropriate for this
site, we are today withdrawing petition CU-95-24, the application for
the conditional use of the private club. We believe that as we are no
longer requesting the conditional use approval for a private club,
that certain items that became issues and were necessary as part of
the initial application that were necessary as part of the staff
review that were issues raised by members of the public, are no longer
applicable, pertinent, or relevant to the variance petition which is
still at stay, that being variance petition V-95-29. We believe that
the elimination of the conditional use eliminates any of the questions
raised by Commissioner Norris as to whether there would be a doubling
up on uses, which I believe he articulated as a concern, that being --
having the maximum number of residential dwelling units coupled with
what was perceived as a commercial use.
We also believe that eliminating and withdrawing the
conditional use application eliminates any questions with regards to
traffic generation and overcrowding of beaches, and we believe they
are no longer relevant issues before this board.
In light of the decision to withdraw the conditional
use, our client instructed the consultants, land planners, and
architects to reconfigure the project without the conditional use. We
and our client have intentionally scrutinized the site in light of the
concerns and in light of the withdrawal of the conditional use and
have by this process been able to narrow down the area where the
variance is needed to that portion dealing with the tower portion of
the structure fronting on South Collier Boulevard.
With the board's indulgence, if I may, I have a few
large exhibits, and then also I have some handouts for the board. I
have prepared -- we have prepared for the board's review and
utilization in this a notebook for the board which in part contains a
revised site plan dated February 8th of 1996.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Pires, can we just ask you --
MR. PIRES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is your sketch over there the
same as the one here that's colored?
MR. REISCHL: Yes, that's the February 8th one also.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. The staff has the February 8th.
And what I'd like to do -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. PIRES: Try not to trip over the foam core board or
the -- or the wire here. As I said, the use will be that of a hotel.
A hotel is permitted as a matter of right under the RT zoning
district. A hundred and three hotel units can be constructed on this
site utilizing the criteria outlined within the Land Development
Code. The hotel will have the normal accessory and allowable
customary uses and facilities associated with a hotel permitted as a
matter of right in the RT district. We would like to provide this
overview followed by some testimony and reserving the opportunity, as
is customary, to respond after public comment to pertinent issues
dealing with the variance including calling additional witnesses.
Further, there may be some discussion about deed
restrictions, and I believe that the Land Development Code
specifically outlines that deed restrictions are not appropriate for
discussions of zoning matters by this board. That's section 2.6.18 of
the Land Development Code.
The site plan that you have in your booklet, which is at
tab 3, depicts the proposed revised variance request. You will note I
have outlined -- and for the purposes of the notebooks that you have
-- in yellow, and I'll outline here the area where the variance is
now requested. It's approximately a 220-linear-foot dimension being
145.82 feet along the front portion near South Collier Boulevard and
approximately 74 feet in length in east-west direction along the
southerly property line. The initial request was for variance over a
larger portion of this southerly-easterly meandering side yard. We
have natrowed it down to the minimum necessary to obtain a reasonable
and practical use of the property.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Pires, just because I'm --
have -- have a little kindergarten trouble with looking at this --
what I see is just some building footprint that abuts what looks to be
tennis courts now? So this -- this setback that you're asking for the
variance is a setback from tennis courts, not from habitable
structure?
MR. PIRES: At this location to the -- to the due south
of this portion of the tower structure are tennis courts. This
building that stays is an existing one-story building, is a facility
that is a -- appears to be a manager's office, an operational office
for the time-share project. The parcel to the south is a Club Regency
time-share project.
A little bit of history. Initially there was a design
to have the whole project as a time-share project. In 1986, however
-- well, prior to that time the phase one was developed, as you see
it in the southerly portion with these various three-story buildings,
the tennis courts and the one-story building and another recreational
facility building in this location.
The concept called for four phases of the condominium.
However, a foreclosure action that initiated in 1986 culminated in
1990, four years later, with a court ordered foreclosure sale of the
subject property. So this parcel, that lot line, was -- it became a
hardened property line by that foreclosure action. In 1995 the
property was sold, and a bankruptcy court ordered auction in New York
City. That's where our client acquired the property.
From an orientation standpoint, the -- the structure is
located, as I said, more in a north-to-south direction. And from the
aerial photographs, which is located at tab 1 of your booklet, gives
you an overview of the surrounding and adjacent uses. The subject
property is noted. Immediately to the north is Eagle's Nest, which is
13 stories tall. To the north of that is the Marriott, a 10-story
hotel; across the street, Marriott tennis courts and parking lot; to
the south the Club Regency. Further south is The Chalet, a 12-story
structure that currently exists south of our subject property.
Furthermore, you -- I'd like to direct your attention to
tab 2, the aerial photograph of this site. And this, I believe,
dramatically iljustrates the extremely irregular shape of the parcel,
which the courts have found to be a classic hardship. The courts in
Florida have stated when you have an irregularly-shaped parcel of this
nature, it is deemed to be a classic hardship. We have outlined and
delineated in red the property line of the subject property to
indicate and give you an idea of how it is situated.
You will note -- and Mrs. Cawley will be testifying as a
land planner, will go over in greater detail, but the tower location
is in this portion of the site. It is located closer to South Collier
that is landward or eastward of existing high-rise structures and
other residential units in the area, Eagle's Nest being this tower
structure which is located more forward of our proposed tower
structure, The Chalet which is located substantially forward of our
proposed tower structure, and these are the existing Club Regency
units (indicated). This unit in the center here (indicated) which is
about two or three stories in height on our parcel, is a temporary
sales facility that will be removed.
The petition as originally configured with greater areas
where setback was requested was favorably reviewed and approved by
your expert staff, Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Reischl. I would ask that they
also be acknowledged as experts in planning, land use, and zoning
ordinances today by this board and that they have stated -- I believe
you will hear them state that they have their continued favorable
recommendation of the variance request. And I believe they also will
advise you that by reducing the area involved, no further staff review
or action is necessary.
As I stated before, the rationale for granting of the
variance, we are locating the taller structure closer to South Collier
Boulevard away from, behind existing adjacent structures. The
buildings in the westerly portion of this site will have reduced
heights. It will allow a 103-unit hotel with associated uses and
facilities on an extremely irregular piece of land and otherwise will
have no reasonable use of the property.
As I stated before, it's well recognized --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead. We're waiting for you to
finish your disclaimers here so we can proceed.
MR. PIRES: As I said, the irregular shape of the parcel
constitutes a classic hardship, hardship that arises from the realty
itself.
What I'd like to do at this time is have Ms. Cawley --
unless you have questions of myself or any other members of our staff.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we will have questions of you
right now. But I'm going to take this opportunity to put on the
record that I have had numerous contacts, personal, telephone, written
contacts on both sides of this issue. But I am going to base my
decision on the information presented here in this hearing today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to repeat that same
disclaimer.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Ditto.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I, too, have had mostly letters
from citizens on Marco Island, no phone calls, but certainly contact
with the petitioner. And I will also base my decision on what I hear
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same for me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, how many -- with the 103
units of hotel space, how many parking spaces will be required by our
code?
MR. REISCHL: Hotel requires 11 spaces for every 10
guest rooms plus 50 percent of the required restaurant parking. I
have a handout if you want me to hand out --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And what does that -- just tell us
what that figure comes up to.
MR. REISCHL: Well, that would depend on restaurant size
and various other things that are not -- were not under review when
they were submitted.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for the rooms how many
would it be, and then we can guesstimate over and above for
restaurant?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A hundred and fourteen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hundred and thirteen.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It would be 114.
MR. REISCHL: Just for the rooms, and then restaurant
would be calculated at 50 percent of normal restaurant fillings.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Of normal restaurant size, which is
one for every two seats.
MR. REISCHL: One for every two seats or 60 feet --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So it would be one for four seats --
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- you're saying?
MR. REISCHL: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Pires, how many parking spaces are
-- is the petitioner going to provide here?
MR. PIRES: At the minimum, the minimum amount required
by the Land Development Code. But for the type of resort hotel that
is being proposed -- but we may have additional parking facilities
which is allowed under the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a number?
MR. PIRES: I don't have a number, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You don't have a number?
Please, let's -- let's hold the comments down from the
audience. That's really not allowed here. You're out of order when
you do that. Let's give the petitioner a chance to try to answer the
questions. And the question is how many parking places you intend to
provide, and you don't have an answer for that?
MR. PIRES: The answer is that it will have an adequate
number of parking spaces to support the principal use and associated
customary accessory uses. There may be additional allowed under the
Land Development Code.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask you a question on
that?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You certainly may, but I find it
difficult to believe that -- that you're proposing a large project and
you don't have any idea of how many parking spaces you're going to
provide. Is what you're telling us is you don't have a number in
mind?
MR. PIRES: Well, as to the parking structure -- that
portion, once again, we have withdrawn -- or we are not asking -- we
are no longer asking for a variance for the parking portion of this
structure. The portion that we're asking the variance for is the
tower portion where the units will be located along with the normal
associated operational aspects of a hotel, which the site as it's
configured -- no reasonable practical use of the site of this for a
hotel, as a resort hotel, can be made without locating in this area.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask a different question in the
same light. Do you anticipate building a parking garage to facilitate
these parking spaces that you need?
MR. PIRES: The -- this portion of the project in this
area here is designed to accommodate the parking for the facility
(indicated) in this area. And these are all achieving the setbacks.
Initially -- the initial application requested variances for portions
of this parking portion of the structure, but we have now achieved the
setbacks after receiving the various comments, after changing the
nature of the use so as to be able to meet the setbacks for the
parking portion of the structure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And how big -- how many stories will
that parking structure be?
MR. PIRES: The height that we understand at the present
time is approximately 27 feet above the -- in this case the base
elevation would be 12 feet, so approximately -- we have the grade,
though, so it's difficult -- possibly 30 feet above sea level,
approximately 33.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That being three stories or four
stories?
MR. PIRES: I believe it could be three stories,
possibly four stories. It would be three stories above grade.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's see, we have -- everybody
wants to ask a question. Who's first? Mr. Hancock, I believe, and
then Ms. Matthews.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you don't mind, I've just got
a legal question for Mr. Weigel before we go much further.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, that could take a while.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Start the clock ticking.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But my question is real simple.
With all the substantial changes that have been offered today, does
this need to go back to the Planning Commission?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that -- I think that what we're
finding are reductions from what has previously been before the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm aware of that. I
just want it on the record that we can move forward with this, and I
don't want anybody saying that we didn't have the authority.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. You have the authority to move
forward.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Pires, I'm going to cut to
the chase on the real question that everyone seems to be here for and
Commissioner Norris was alluding to, and I think it's important that
we get this on the record. You have removed the conditional use for a
private club. We sit here in assumption then saying there will not be
a private beach club on this site; is that correct?
MR. PIRES: There will not be a private club; that's
correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So you will not be selling
memberships to this property for use of these facilities; is that
correct?
MR. PIRES: Well, the Land Development Code has a very
specific definition as to what a private club is, and that's a
conditional use under the RT zoning. As any other hotel similarly
situated in RT, we cannot have a private club without having a
conditional use approved by this board.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So five years from now if
this building is built and someone finds that there are private
memberships being sold, you are in violation of the Collier County
zoning ordinance, would you be?
MR. PIRES: If they find that we are a private club
under the Land Development Code, yes, sir, we would be.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which implies having memberships
and selling them that qualifies you as a private club; is that
correct?
MR. PIRES: The definition of private club under the
Land Development Code addresses civic, fraternal, and social
organizations and generally not-for-profit types of organizations.
And there's a general -- it's a well-defined term in the Land
Development Code. And we cannot provide or operate a private club as
defined in the Land Development Code.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not trying to get around
that and do it in another way is what --
MR. PIRES: Oh, no, sir. Whatever a legal associated
customary accessory use associated with hotels will be utilized and
provided for on this site.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You understand, the residents
here -- going to have more parking that is required by code that says
to them that you're going to have other uses that are not being
identified today. That's the imp1 -- that's what's being implied --
MR. PIRES: I understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I think these folks as
well as this board need an assurance -- not just an assurance, but
full knowledge that that's not the case. And that's what I'm asking
you is -- you know, we can talk about how it's defined all we want.
But I need to know that a private club will not be a part of this
building and this development. And so the people on Marco Island need
to know that.
MR. PIRES: There will not be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The remaining questions I have is
that your parking garage for the most part is shielded by the
building; is that correct?
MR. PIRES: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So from the street they're going
to see the front of a building, not a parking garage, except for it
looks like there's a load that sticks out on the south side?
MR. PIRES: A relatively small portion -- I believe
there might be a north side -- I know I get a little -- in this area
will be visible from South Collier.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I was looking at the south.
There's a little piece that sticks out below the --
MR. PIRES: No. This actually is a configuration of a
parking structure here. This is an area -- and Barbara Cawley will
explain more in detail for the landscaping that we propose to have in
a conceptual nature in this area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My remaining question is
one that in looking at this site plan, it's obvious that you could
build a structure here without a variance. What would -- it makes me
ask why you're here for the variance. I mean, the building
configuration could be changed. Why wouldn't you be willing to change
it to avoid the variance?
MR. PIRES: We can't -- you know, to obtain a reasonable
and practical use of the property, the tower structure needs to be
located in the location as indicated on the proposed site plan and in
this revised variance request.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there any benefit to changing
this or any detriment to changing this instead of being front-ways
being depth? I mean, that's what I'm getting at is I look at this,
and to me you have two ways to build. You build across the frontage,
or you can build through the depth on the northern property boundary.
And I -- one is probably preferable to the people on either side, and
one is preferable to the rest of the island. And, you know, I --
either way someone's going to get happy. But I'm just curious why
this configuration and why this variance. What is the benefit here as
opposed to making you build it within -- within the setbacks?
MR. PIRES: Once again -- and Miss Cawley will provide
testimony to substantiate that to obtain a reasonable and practical
use of the property it does need to be located and situated in the
manner indicated on the site plan and not in any other location. You
have this irregular -- extremely irregular -- I guess, tortured lot
line that creates, once again, what the courts have indicated is a
classic hardship. And to obtain a reasonable and practical use of the
property it needs to be situated and sited as indicated.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me go back to what I was
getting at, because this is getting right to the heart of it, and you
say reasonable and practical use of it. Let's -- let's do some quick
calculations. From the information we received from Mr. Reischl we
need 114 parking spaces for the hotel usage. If we have a 200-seat
restaurant, then we need 50 more. That's 164. There's going to be
other accessory uses, so let's say 200 parking spaces. No, let's be
generous and say 250 parking spaces, because there may be things that
we haven't anticipated yet, and you need employee parking. So for 250
or 300 parking spaces why do you need a four-story or a three-story
parking garage? And the answer is you're going to do something to
attract people other than usage for the hotel; right? MR. PIRES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In other words, you're going to try to
operate what you were asking for with the private club, but to do it
and not call it a private club; isn't that really what you're telling
me?
MR. PIRES: No, sir. We're not going to operate a
private club.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're not going to operate a private
club, but you're going to provide all the parking to do -- without
calling it a private club and without operating it as a private club;
isn't that correct?
MR. PIRES: No, sir. What we're going to do, as I
indicated, is have the parking. We can have adequate parking and even
more parking for the principal use and its associated customary uses.
It can be convention facilities, stage entertainment, restaurants,
beach facilities, health facilities, all that are customary associated
accessory facilities of a hotel.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, we don't
generally penalize people for going above and beyond what the code
requires. I understand your point, and that is are they trying to
come in the back door here. And I think via statements like that on
this record and via stipulations that we have the ability to put in
whatever motion we eventually get to, we can make sure that that
doesn't happen. I understand your point, but the parking in and of
itself may indicate that. If you can clearly indicate you're not
going to have a private club that you say helps --
MR. PIRES: We're not going to have a private club --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a little bit. I think
once we get through the rest of your presentation, it's going to help
clarify what uses you do and don't intend. What I think you see from
at least a couple of members of the board, some concern about what was
originally presented. Now you've withdrawn some of that.
When I read this over the weekend there were the
conditional use, and there were a number of variances. That has
slimmed down considerably to this point to just a couple of points.
And we need to make sure as -- as part of your presentation that those
uses aren't going to crop up through the back door. And I've heard
you assure that, but we need to be very clear on that now as you go
through your presentation, because I'm not sure that everything --
and, again, it's -- that's not what's in front of us now. But I'm not
sure that everything that had initially been presented was compatible
with what some of the board members felt. I'm just getting in that
left field here. So we're going to need some assurance that that's
not what you're looking to do now over and above your verbal
statement. I think we need to know what are you looking to do.
MR. PIRES: Once again, we -- you know, there's a
stipulation there will not be a private club pursuant to the Land
Development Code. We've said that; it's on the record. We've
committed to that.
And from the standpoint -- the variance request is
solely for the tower portion of the project, and that's necessitated
by the height. The RT zoning district requires setbacks in this
instance -- instance for the tower be one-half the height of the
structure. The structure is 98 feet and needs to be set back 49
feet. That's irrespective of any parking consideration. I believe
Barbara Cawley can testify to that. I just wanted to make that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the only variance request
you're having right now is in regards to height?
MR. PIRES: That's correct. For height variance for the
tower portion of the structure solely.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There are no setback variance?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Setback variance.
MR. PIRES: The variance relates to that portion of the
tower structure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess then that's where we
need to focus our discussion, because we seem to be drifting off onto
other things. And there is a particular variance being requested, and
we need to address that. And if there are some problems with that, we
need to address those. But some of the other things aren't being
requested anymore. And if they're not being requested, we're not
doing a lot of good talking about them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Reischl real quickly
what would be the typical number of parking places for a 103-unit
hotel.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're not asking for any
reduction in parking spaces.
MR. REISCHL: It would be the 114 just for the hotel and
then the restaurant and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about convention space?
MR. REISCHL: Convention space --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because parking at the
Marriott's a nightmare.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But, board members, I
understand that's not what they're asking for. But by granting this
variance what they are, in effect, doing is asking us to -- to grant
them a variance so that they will have more room available to build a
parking structure which is going to be far and above what their
typical usage would be. And that's why I'm trying to get to --
MR. REISCHL: Okay. The accessory structures, I think,
are spelled out in the parking requirement including restaurant,
miscellaneous retail uses, meeting rooms, ballrooms and convention
rooms, lounges, bars, and nightclubs.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So all of those -- all of those
have to be factored in at the time of SDP to provide the proper amount
of parking?
MR. REISCHL: Right.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Pires.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have an architectural
rendering that specifies the amount of convention space, lounges,
restaurants? You don't have that? MR. PIRES: No, we do not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because if you are going
to include significant convention space, anyone who has attended a
convention at the Marriott knows that more parking is needed than is
provided there. That would bump up your parking requirements
significantly if you were to do significant convention space.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, convention facilities, conference
facilities. So in working with --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm as suspect as Commissioner
Norris about the private club side of things. The inability to nail
down a number of parking spaces today is related to the -- those
things not being answered, those things not being decided yet?
MR. PIRES: It's anticipated, once again, a conceptual
plan that the restaurant and convention facilities be primarily
located in this structure closer to the beach for which no variance is
being requested. So, once again, it's an accessory -- customary
accessory use to a hotel, so we don't believe it's pertinent to this
discussion. The request for the variance is, once again, along this
yellow line here solely for the tower portion dealing with the hotel
units themselves.
I'd like to at this time have the board qualify Miss
Barbara Cawley of Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek. And I'd like to
tender her as an expert in land use and zoning and the Land
Development Code. I don't know if the board wishes to engage in any
examination of her. Her resume is in front of you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll stipulate.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Ms.
Barbara Cawley.
MS. CAWLEY: Good morning again, Commissioners, Barbara
Cawley for the record. I think Tony's done a pretty good job of
describing the parcel to you and why we're here today for this -- this
variance request. We've natrowed down our variance request, as Tony
has said, to a very, very small area of the site. And we looked at
the site to determine why we needed -- how we could construct a
building on the site, and this was the minimum that we could do in
terms of how the shape of the parcel allowed us to build and because
of other factors that also are involved in the site such as the
coastal construction control line, such as views from adjacent
properties which we didn't want to disturb. We felt that those were
-- were crucial in terms of how we -- we located the building on the
site. And in order to fit the -- the required -- the use that we're
requesting, the hotel unit on the site, this is the minimum variance
that we're -- that we're going to need.
The other part of that is that in terms of parking
spaces if we were going to be changing the design of this property,
this -- this building, we may not be able to get the minimum number of
parking spaces required by moving the building in -- in a different
location. So we were concerned about making sure that we had the
minimum parking spaces that we did need in order to -- to build on
this site and to adequately serve the people that are going to be
using the hotel.
As -- as Tony said, really the parking -- number of
parking spaces that we're -- that we're going to be locating on this
site is now irrelevant, because we don't have a request in for the --
the parking structure anymore. It's -- it's going to comply with any
setbacks that are existing on the site.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me ask something
there, because there's a similar situation, and I don't want to get
into it because it's in code enforcement right now. If a hotel comes
in for an SDP, they have to provide a parking calculation. MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In that parking
calculation they have to account for all generators of parking spaces.
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If in that you put in, you know,
off site -- you know, off site beach people or off site -- if there's
anything extra and above that, that would be a serious question
probably from our staff's perspective why additional parking and so
forth. I'm trying to nail down where this comes about. If we find
out down the road that you are -- that the property is selling parking
spaces to utilize the beach and it was not a part of your parking
calculation, I believe we then have a violation of the zoning
ordinance, do we not?
MS. CAWLEY: That would be something for code
enforcement to look at at that -- at that time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we're looking at it right now
on another property.
MS. CAWLEY: And then I guess we'll have an answer if
code enforcement is in the process of --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My interpretation is that --
MS. CAWLEY: I don't know where they are with that. I
didn't --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Bob, if someone is -- is
selling beach privileges at a hotel property where they can come and
park, if their parking calculation for their SDP did not show it, it
would be a zoning violation.
MR. MULHERE: I would agree. We have a zoning
violation. We have a violation of the approved SDP as well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But if they're giving them away, not
selling them --
MR. MULHERE: I think we still have a violation.
MS. CAWLEY: And generally I know that the staff
encourages additional parking. We get into situations where we have
one parking space over the max -- the minimum needed, and that does
get into some problems sometimes. But in this case we probably will
have -- giving ourselves a buffer in terms of causing any problems
with parking down there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many hundred buffers would you --
MS. CAWLEY: Commissioner, I really don't know how many
parking spaces they're talking about.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask if this would be a real
good time to -- to ask if the petitioner would be willing to stipulate
that they will make their calculations on their SDP for parking with
the approved uses. Would you be willing to stipulate that you'll go
to that calculation plus or minus 10 percent or plus 10 percent?
MS. CAWLEY: Let me let the petitioner answer that
question.
MR. PIRES: I believe that would -- once again, I think
the topic is being diverted from the primary focus of the tower, which
is the variance that's being requested, and as to -- as to the
question asked, I believe that what is now happening is that the
minimum is now becoming the maximum. Once again, the determination of
the number of parking spaces is something that's determined by the
property owner, and through our access the code says enhance your
interior landscaping, and that's --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So your answer was no?
MR. PIRES: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. If that's all, Miss
Cawley, we'll go to the public speakers.
MS. CAWLEY: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I got one question.
MS. CAWLEY: I just need to put a few things on the
record for your indulgence as an expert tendered in land planning.
There exists an exceptional and unique land hardship unique to this
parcel and not shared by others in the area.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While you're on that, may I ask, has
that hardship been imposed on the property owner since the property
was purchased by this property owner?
MS. CAWLEY: Since the property was purchased? No, it
was prior to purchase.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So it existed before the property was
purchased.
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's have that on the record
as well.
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. It was done under -- as
Tony -- Mr. Pires stated, during the bankruptcy and foreclosure of the
property.
The minimum variance necessary -- this is the minimum
variance necessary to make a reasonable use of the property as
requested today, and we've revised the site plan to show that minimum
variance needed. And the staff has concurred with this request.
The requested variance is consistent with the Land
Development Code, with the growth management plan, and is in harmony
with the general intent and purpose of the provisions in the Land
Development Code.
The granting of the variance will not be injurious to
the neighborhood and will not be contrary to the public interest. We
agree with the staff recommendations and the Collier County Planning
Commission recommendations and the conclusion that this variance
should be granted. I also agree that no reasonable use of the
property can be made of this property without granting this variance.
The only reasonable use of this property is for a
high-rise structure, and this -- and the minimum variance that we're
requesting is necessary in order to make reasonable use of this
request and that this -- this variance, if granted, will permit the
property owner to make reasonable use of the property, and this
reasonable use could not be made without granting of this variance.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews has a question,
Miss Cawley.
MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: As a land planner looking at
that -- at the drawing, I guess it really doesn't matter which drawing
MS. CAWLEY: Any drawing would work.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In the RT zoning the required
setback is one-half of the building height? MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the height is 98 feet?
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can you give me some idea of '-
MS. CAWLEY: Where that would cut off?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- where that would cut off?
MS. CAWLEY: It would be approximately about here
(indicated). You would cut off this entire south end of the -- of the
property here. This is -- you would -- you would cut off -- this is
-- this is approximately 54 feet here. So if you do the same thing
here, you're -- you're cutting off the entire south end of this
building.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're going to lose about
one-third of the building.
MS. CAWLEY: You lose about a third of the building;
that's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Cawley, while you're there, what
if you took that portion of the building and just continued the angle
on out to the southwest '-
MS. CAWLEY: Down this way?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- couldn't you get the same number of
units in there?
MS. CAWLEY: You couldn't. You would also have a
problem of -- of the property line as well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How about if there was an additional
wing on the north end that went straight out to the west? You could
get your units, couldn't you?
MS. CAWLEY: You would really have a tortured building
if you start making a big L in the building in terms of how the -- and
it would also block the views of the people in the Eagle's Nest which
we were really concerned about. So we wanted to make sure that the
building was as far to the east as we could go in order to be
compatible with our neighbors. I don't believe that it would be an
appropriate building.
MR. PIRES: Just briefly, I guess, also, Hiss Cawley, we
have a conceptual landscaping plan, If you could briefly describe that
to the board. I know there are a number of registered speakers, and
then if I could make brief concluding comments with opportunity for
rebuttal.
MS. CAWLEY: This is a -- this is a rendering -- I know
people in the audience can't see. This is a rendering that we did of
the site plan. And the interesting thing about this is that the
developer has a history of developing high-rise condominiums and in --
and landscaping the tops of parking structures. If you're familiar
with The Brittany in Pelican Bay, this is the -- a similar idea from
-- to that. This would be the high-rise structure. We now would
have landscaping, of course, all along the southern portion of the --
of the property as well as our required buffer on the north and on the
east. And the top of the parking garage would also have some type of
landscaping to -- and also allow people to access the convention
facility and beach facility along the top of the parking garage
instead of having to go down into the parking area to have access to
the beach facility. And then, of course, we have our boardwalk across
the sand dune to the beach consistent with the -- with the code.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: What are the red things?
MS. CAWLEY: Like bougainvillea.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's an architect's illusion of a
tree.
MS. CAWLEY: They're bougainvillea.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought trees were green, not
red.
MS. CAWLEY: Those are flowering plants.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that conclude your initial
presentation?
MS. CAWLEY: That concludes my presentation.
MR. PIRES: In conclusion we believe that -- the staff
has provided testimony in the form of the recommendations. And I
believe they would say so today also, and we would like to hear them
say that and that our expert, Barbara Cawley, had concluded that
variance request is consistent with the growth management plan in
harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC, the criteria,
and seven-part test outlined in the Land Development Code for review
granting a variance request have been met.
Under Florida case law, particularly City of Coral
Gables versus Geary, the irregular shape constitutes a classic
hardship. There is a legal hardship under that same case. The
hardship involved arises from circumstances peculiar to the realty
alone, and it is not the act of the purchaser which brings the
hardship into being and, therefore, is incorrect to charge him with
having created it. He had not created it.
We request an opportunity to provide additional rebuttal
evidence and argument depending upon what, if any, pertinent comments
may arise during the course of the registered speakers portion. Thank
you very kindly, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll go to the public
speakers. While Mr. HcNees is calling you up -- we'd like to call up
one, and the following speaker, if you could come up and be ready to
go. We limit our speakers to five minutes maximum. We have a number
of speakers today, so we'd certainly appreciate if you don't use your
total five minutes. We ask you probably to do your best not to be too
repetitive. And one last reminder is that we are -- we're dealing
with the discussion of a variance here. Please confine your -- your
remarks to the subject of the variance. That's what's being
discussed.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Reischl looked like he
wanted to interject something, and I'd like to hear that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, you need to put something
else on?
MR. REISCHL: I just wanted to say that staff does
recommend approval of the reduced variance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, your first speaker
would be Hr. Eric Silversen (sic) followed by James Haynes.
MR. SIVERSEN: Good morning. My name is Eric Siversen,
and I am a taxpayer and resident of Marco Island. I'd like to make a
couple points. I was a little taken back by the change today. I had
come prepared for something quite different. But I have to tell you
sitting here and listening to the petitioner's representative I smell
a Trojan horse. It's just as clear as crystal to me. With respect to
the parking and the inability or the unwillingness to generate an
actual imperical number frightens me to no end.
The -- the area in question, it -- it -- it lends itself
to problems. Number one, those people that live on Marco are aware of
the conditions this summer due to lack of drainage on the island.
With every rainfall of any significance Collier Boulevard was
completely flooded, impassable. The -- the building of any further
structures and/or parking facilities or macadam will further make
difficult the problem of -- of losing that water, that rainwater, in
the summertime. It will just make matters that much worse.
Having been a previous business owner of a security
company on Marco Island, I can also tell you that the most security
problemed area is the beach adjacent to the Eagle's Nest which is
adjacent to the property requesting the variance. I submit to the
board that a check with the sheriff's department will confirm the fact
that the calls to the beach for problems are significant in that area,
perhaps the most significant on Marco Island.
Basically without those imperical numbers, I'd like to
leave it at two minutes by saying again and repeating again, I believe
that this is a Trojan horse, that it's just a -- a ruse for getting
back to the original concept that the developer had.
And one last point, with respect to the -- the hardship,
the petitioner purchased the hardship. It may not have been his fault
that the hardship exists, but the petitioner himself purchased the
hardship. Thank you very much for your time.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Haynes and then Mr. Cronin.
MR. HAYNES: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you.
I'm Tim Haynes. I'm a full-time resident of Marco Island. I'm also a
member of the Vision Planning Committee and have been since its
inception, but I'm speaking as a resident of Marco Island right now.
I support everything the prior speaker said with the addition of a
couple of comments.
One, I did hear petition -- I was ready to applaud the
petitioner for the revision until I heard a few things that he said.
One thing he said, that subsidiary uses had to do with the beach as
well. He did dance around the idea that this would not be a private
club. That's -- that's okay. That sounds good but -- however, would
he agree that they would not advertise parking to off-island
facilities that they or some people that they are involved with would
support as a -- as an attractive sales gimmick?
I am very frightened here, and I compliment you, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Vice-chairman, both of you, for your probing
questions. And I think that there should be written assurances that
there won't be any other subterfuges used, either implied in
advertising or the salespeople on some other facility off island would
be saying, hey, you buy this, you got -- you can park in this hotel.
I would appreciate it. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cronin and then, Mr. Mackelfresh,
you'll follow Mr. Cronin, if I could have you stand by, please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many do we have, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: I'm going to say you've got 18.
MR. CRONIN: Good morning. My name is
Dennis P. Cronin. I'm an attorney. I represent the board of
directors and the board of administration for Club Regency, which is
the property immediately to the south of this proposal. I think that
one of the things that I would question the petitioner's presentation
was that it was very conclusionary with respect to the issue of
reasonable and practical use of this property. I think the board
appropriately questioned a scale-down or a different development plan
for this property, certainly makes it reasonable and practical. I
think that what's really at issue here and what is underlying this
entire proposal is an economic consideration, which is inappropriate
for a variance consideration.
You're looking at a 49-foot variance proposal on the
south side of that property, which I believe is extreme in scope and
extreme in magnitude and could clearly be scaled back to meet that
requirement and redesign of the property. And that's really what
needs to -- to be done here. I think that your -- the Florida case
law is clear. The reasonable use of a property is this is the only
use, and that's not the case here. It's very clear.
Mr. -- Mr. Pires quoted the case of -- of Coral Gables
versus Geary. Another quote from that is if a purchaser buys land
with a condition creating a hardship upon it, the owner is only
entitled to such variance as its predecessor was entitled, so I think
that's clearly the case here. The irregular shape of the property is
a function of the auction process and was reflected in the purchase
price presumably that the petitioner paid for this property.
With respect to other aspects of the elements of
variance petition, I think that the -- the board should consider these
as conjunctive, that they all have to be met, and clearly the -- the
fact that there is a reasonable use of this property -- it's
available. What's driving this -- this proposal is the case of
economic feasibility. The boundary lines were drawn when the
purchaser purchased the property. Is it hardship versus
inconvenience, and is it self-created under that Coral Gables versus
Geary case? The hardship issue must render it virtually impossible to
use the land for the purposes or in the manner for which it is zoned,
and that's clearly not the case here.
That's the extent of my comments, and Mr. Hackelfresh
and Mr. Pearman, Judge Pearman, also from Club Regency.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait, Mr. Cronin. You said that
this was created -- this was created by -- and fill in the blank. But
wasn't this created by Club Regency, and don't you have buildings that
have a zero lot line setback on your property?
MR. CRONIN: Because it was a phased development, I can
let Mr. Hackelfresh speak to that. I believe that's irrelevant to the
zoning for this property, yes.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hackelfresh and then Mr. Pearman.
MR. HACKELFRESH: My name is John T. Hackelfresh. I'm a
resident of Marco Island. I'm a property owner of two unit weeks also
at the Club Regency. And I'm also the vice president of their new
board, which we have now taken over from the developer just in the
past month.
I have owned that property since about nineteen
eighty-four -- three really at the Club Regency and have seen the
disasters that have fallen on numerous people who have endeavored to
buy the property to develop it to do whatever with it. But when it
was first defined, that property was -- we had a very lovely little
condominium time-share unit. And I'll be glad to show a photograph --
picture -- picture of the board which I think -- or rendering to the
board which I think would be very nice to know what the original plans
were. Let's see. Here we go. Here's some postcards that they
provided.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. You have to speak on the
record, Mr. Mackelfresh.
MR. MACKELFRESH: These are postcards that were
provided, and that is essentially the way the development was to be
done over a period of time in a phased -- phased manner. Well, we all
know that finances can get to be a problem, and it happened in the
configuration of that lot or property was -- was defined in 1986. And
it hasn't changed since 1986. If there's a hardship, I think the only
hardship is paying many millions of dollars for a piece of property
that you knew the lines on and made it difficult to build something
on. So I question that there really is no real hardship at all, and
they should -- I would hope that the developer would do -- endeavor to
-- to design his building to more reasonably fit the property and not
get involved in this -- not get involved in this zero setback line.
Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pearman and then Mr. Volpe.
MR. PEARMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Ralph Pearman. I am individually an owner of weeks at both Club
Regency and Eagle's Nest. And fortunately or unfortunately, I am the
president of the board at Club Regency following a recent election and
am here to appear on their behalf. And we really want to be good
neighbors. And we realize that these folks have a right to build a
hotel or a condominium on this property, and we wish them well. Just
don't step on us in the process.
We were not given any opportunity to observe or study or
even know what the changes were for this morning to try to answer or
object to this variance. The only thing we had was the initial phase
plan which was shown at the previous hearing. And if you look at
that, it's all concrete in front clear down to the beach line.
I come from a rural area originally, and drainage is
something that is very near and dear to everyone. And we have certain
legal principles establishing the right to drainage. And being the
neighbor is going to have all this concrete poured in there, according
to their original plan, with no provision for drainage, we are
concerned. We've seen no engineering studies. We have not been
talked to how are they going to provide -- so that we don't get dumped
on and inundated by this concrete structure that they're putting up
known as a parking garage, that we do not know how big it will be, how
high it will be, or how many spaces it's going to afford. Now, we
want to get along, but we want to be able to use and enjoy our
property, too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry to interrupt,
but earlier at a different public hearing, Mr. Weigel, I asked if
someone got their petition -- that was the affordable housing -- if
they were required to get certain permits for their water and sewer.
And you had said yes, regardless of what we did here. I'm going to
assume -- and this is just trying to answer that question, is that
between the county and Southwest Florida Water Management and others
that the drainage issues all have to be addressed so that it's not
just concrete going -- so the water doesn't just drain anywhere,
particularly onto the neighbor's property; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. And that would come
through site development plan and other reviews at the county level,
let alone any outside governmental entity that might be looking at
it.
MR. PEARMAN: I was concerned that Mr. Pires did not
give any unequivocal answer to the chairman's question about the
membership or the back-door issue. And we would like to have an
answer that Fiddler's Creek or no other development that they are
connected to, members will be given, awarded, sold, or in any way
provided passes, parking spaces, or access through this particular
development.
And we have another particular interest. There was an
easement granted by our predecessors, the developer, at Club Regency
to this neighboring property for common use or easement of this
entrance. At that time we had no idea how many people will be coming
through. We were not given the opportunity to comment on it. We have
seen no -- nothing in the plans or what provision is going to be made
to access. But I think as one of the commissioners commented, the
traffic and parking and problems at the Marriott when they have a
convention. Now, are we going to have to share a common entrance with
them with the convention facility for an easement that was taken
without any consideration given or any concern for the property use
traffic tie-up effect on Collier Boulevard that was going to be
given?
Also, I'd like to clarify that Club Regency was not
built in 1986 but about four or five years previous to that.
Eighty-six was when the first developer went bankrupt and it was
foreclosed on.
We -- we would like to get along with them and -- for
the betterment of all the properties along the beach. But if they
won't talk to us, tell us what they're going to be doing, show us
their plans, we have no alternative but to appear here and
respectfully request that you deny this application until further
plans can be provided and exact answers be given to your questions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Volpe and then Mr. Blanchard.
MR. VOLPE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. My name is Michael Volpe with the law firm of Treiser, Kobza,
and Volpe. I'm here this morning as the legal representative for the
90 unit owners of The Chalet of San Marco, which is a condominium to
the south of the subject real property. I am a legal representative
to my clients. You have your legal representative who has advised you
regarding the procedure. On behalf of my clients I would like to
object to the procedure which is currently being employed in this
quasi-judicial hearing.
This is an advertised public hearing. It is
quasi-judicial in nature. The matter which we have come here today to
address is the petition which was reviewed by your CCPC, the Collier
County Planning Commission, which sought 12 variances for the purposes
of allowing the construction of a multifamily residential structure.
I have sat here during these proceedings. I have no
idea of what -- which 1 or 2 of those 12 variances are being
requested. So I feel that as a matter of procedure this is not the
proper venue at this particular time, that there is a substantial
change or modification in the petition which is a matter that should
go back to your CCPC.
I've heard Mr. Reischl, I believe, make some comments
about some variances, but those have not been, from what has been
represented this morning, properly evaluated by the staff. So on
behalf of our clients, I am objecting to the procedure that is being
employed.
Secondly, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and it is
the petitioner's burden to prove by substantial competent evidence
that the petitioner has met all of the criteria that is required in
order for the grant of a variance.
I need to just go back just a moment in history. This
property previously received a preliminary SDP in 1991, and in that
way the then property owner was able to avoid zoning teevaluation. It
was exempted from zoning teevaluation. I questioned whether that
prior approval of the SDP for this site, which would be phase two of
Club Regency which showed another multifamily condominium project and
how that prior approval impacts upon the proceedings that we're
engaged in this morning.
A lot of discussion about private club. I'm glad the
questions have been asked. There have been no questions asked about
-- originally we were looking at a conditional use which would
accommodate a restaurant of 250 seats -- I have no idea of what the
size of the restaurant will be to service -- I believe, it's 103
units. Also a private club, if you look at your definition under your
Land Development Code, that means that there would be no unrestricted
access by the public. So obviously you sell memberships to a private
club. A hotel is a public facility. And so I think that with the
restaurant and health club membership which would be an accessory use
to a restaurant, there are opportunities that exist. Someone has
mentioned that perhaps this is through indirection what we had taken
away with the withdrawal of the conditional use. So I think that
those are issues that the board should be aware of.
The last point I would make is simply that there are a
number of criteria which are in your Land Development Code, and I
submit that there has not been substantial competent evidence to
establish that this variance, whatever the variance is that's being
requested, is a land-related hardship that was not created by the
petitioner who purchased this property with full knowledge of what the
restrictions were.
And in closing I would simply request advice from the
county attorney as to whether there would be the opportunity for any
representative of an affected property owner to cross-examine the
experts who have offered testimony this morning.
MR. WEIGEL: Do you want me to respond? Yeah, I'll be
happy to respond. In -- in the presentations that are made by the
speakers that have signed up, through the chair they may have -- may
have the opportunity to elicit information from the petitioner to be
brought before the board. The chair retains the ability to control
the length and type of discussion within certain parameters. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. VOLPE: So may we submit questions to the chair to
be asked of the petitioner in rebuttal?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you can -- if the chair so
determines, you could direct the questions directly to the petitioner,
and -- but the chair continues to be the moderator of the hearing, in
any event.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The petitioner's representative has
asked to retain the right for rebuttal at the end of the discussion
period, and if you are requesting the same right, I think it would
probably be appropriate.
MR. VOLPE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, Mr. Volpe raised a point
that this petition is not exactly as it was advertised now. Am I
correct in -- from your earlier statement that the variances that are
now being sought are -- a few of those that were originally advertised
and, therefore, we can proceed with this hearing?
MR. WEIGEL: I think thatws correct. Staff may have
some additional comment in that regard. And by virtue of the fact
that, in essence, we have a reduction of that was advertised --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But my point is that the variances
that are being requested are exactly the -- the way they were
presented in the advertised material?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, ultimately thatws not important.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: The legal advertisement requirement merely
has to be --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Bottom line is we can proceed?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The substance of the variance
that is still being requested has been reviewed by the Planning
Commission?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Just instead of 12 now there are
what; 37
MR. WEIGEL: Evidently, something to that effect.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This particular variance,
though, being requested the Planning Commission has addressed, I mean,
this small part that itws reduced to?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe so, yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to point out, based
on Mr. Volpews request, that we be consistent in time frames to avoid
sitting here through an hour of questioning and cross-examination and
so forth. I think whether itws the rebuttal time or the questioning
time, we need to be consistent in that allotment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We will be. We will be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And wewll be brief because this is a
-- not really -- this is a quasi-judicial hearing. Itws not a court
of law.
Mr. Blanchard, please.
MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. Hill.
MR. BLANCHARD: Thank you. Good morning. My name is
Frank Blanchard. Iwd like to speak as a representative for two
different organizations.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You only get five though, Frank.
MR. BLANCHARD: Huh?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You get only five minutes.
MR. BLANCHARD: Iwm watching the time here. Youwll get
a bargain. Youwll get it all two for one.
The first organization Iwd like to present concerns from
is the Marco Association of Condominiums. Iwm the president of that
organization, and we have discussed the -- the proposal for the
development of this property. Basically, I guess, with the changes
that youwre making or the petitioner is making, if the request all
fits within the existing zoning regulations, then we have no -- we
have no reason to express concern. There is a concern. The primary
concern that we had was primarily one of the intensity of use of that
one section of the beach. As you know, youwre right in the middle of
the prime hotel areas, and so the activities in that area are then
maximized because of the numbers of people present on the beach during
this time of year.
Iim a little concerned. I was thrown off by saying this
is not to be a social club arranged. But there is within the
existence of the current county regulations the possibility of a hotel
arranging for some kind of social representation. I would like to
request; could you please print that in the newspaper as to what that
is? Thatls a little concern.
Now, actually I had heard rumors of one of the hotels
south of this area perhaps of making some kind of an arrangement with
people who lived in Eagle Creek. Iim not sure. Is this arrangement
policed? Who polices it? What is the control mechanism?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Frank -- and just real quickly,
thatls something that I have worked on on other properties. And the
bottom line is if a hotel property tells someone who buys in another
property you can use our parking, thatls an off-site parking demand.
Unless their original development order allowed for that, they are in
violation, and the county can take them to task on it.
MR. BLANCHARD: All right. So in this particular case
then that will not occur?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In this particular case if -- and
Iim drawing the scenario, and Iim sure our staff will correct me if
Iim wrong here. If these folks say to the folks in Fiddler Creek --
and, of course, I know this has nothing to do with the variance, but
this is the main question that Iim hearing from the residents on
Marco. So if these folks tell the people in Fiddler Creek, herels
your sticker, you can park at our property, thatls an off-site parking
generator that is not allowed or permitted by this action today or by
the site development plan, and it canlt be.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Once again, welre getting far afield
from the variance.
MR. BLANCHARD: Could I ask that you please print in the
newspaper what the current county permitted arrangements are for this
hotel that was referred to? Iim not aware of that. I presume --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why donlt we just have our
staff mail something directly to Mr. Blanchard.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: That we can control. What the
newspaper prints we have trouble with. We rarely can control what the
newspaper prints, so we would do better if --
MR. BLANCHARD: You too? You also?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Very much so.
MR. BLANCHARD: The other organization I wanted to
represent is that Iim the chairman of the advisory committee for beach
renourishment on Marco Island. And by your direction you have asked
that committee to control the beach vendor arrangements on the beach.
And obviously if youlre going to permit an intensity of use on that
beach, youlre exacerbating it at just the wrong place in the -- in
that area. So please be considerate of what will take place in that
area. Itls already crowded.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why are you looking right at
me? Therels five of us up here.
MR. BLANCHARD: Well, I donlt know. Perhaps you were
looking at me, and I established eye contact, so I was talking --
Bettye, I appreciate the comment. I'll talk with Pam. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's talk.
MR. BLANCHARD: Our concerns are really intensity of
use. The second point is that we would hate to see a precedent set by
whatever kind of arrangements you make on this property, because there
is the potential of other properties along the way.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. BLANCHARD: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hill and then, Mr. Lyon, if I could
have you stand by, please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many do we have left, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Ten after Mr. Lyon.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ten, that's 50 minutes maximum. Let
me ask the board if -- the pleasure of the board if we take a lunch
break, come back and rehear the rest of these. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep going.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's only one more item after
this one, too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Board members I was polling.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's only one more item after
this one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's go.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd just as soon finish it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No lunch.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We got three no lunches, so
we'll go ahead.
Thank you, sir. Go right ahead.
MR. HILL: Good morning. My name is Howard Hill, and
I'm representing The Chalet of San Marco Condominium Association where
I am president. We were very disturbed when we first found out about
this project and rightfully so. I come here today, and I'm just as
confused as I was disturbed before. I don't know what we have. The
only thing I'm confident of is that when the developer bought this
property at auction, he didn't buy a pig in the poke. He knew exactly
what he had. And I find it very, very uncomfortable at this point to
have them come before this commission today and present a totally new
plan that we were unaware of and I'm assuming all of you were unaware
of.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick correction.
I've got to reiterate. This is not a totally new plan. They've
eliminated all except I think one item, but it was one of the items
they requested before. It's not a totally new item.
MR. REISCHL: There are 4 requested setbacks out of the
original 12.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I know that we're all
confused by virtue of the -- of the changes, but I hope that, you
know, you can understand, I'm -- I'm confused by this. It seems to me
they were asking for a lot more, and you guys won. You scared them
off. They're not asking for what -- all these many, many variances
and this conditional use. And that's probably good, because they also
can probably count and realize that they weren't going to get the
votes for that because of the extreme amount of objection in the
community. But what they're asking for now is just the setback
variance that is generated by the height of the building. You're not
going to have more density than you would otherwise have. And if they
do something other than that, we -- it's our job to send code
enforcement out there to make them stop. And you're -- we hope and
trust that you'll tell us when they're violating that.
But I think that, you know, the change may have confused
people. It seems to me that you've already won a great deal of what
you set out to -- to do.
MR. HILL: Well, I -- in all due respect, I disagree
with that. I have a problem with giving any variance because of this
alleged hardship on this property based on the fact that they knew
what they had when they bought it. I'm not or we're not against a
development of that property per se, believe me. We're not against
that, but we -- I want to reiterate; we have a problem with what they
-- how they've gone about accomplishing this. My guess is they never
had the first intention to put up the original -- original project.
They had this in the closet somewhere, and it hasn't just developed
over the last couple three weeks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the original project
bankrupted.
MR. HILL: I'm talking about the original project that
the developer presented here two or three weeks ago. I will hope -- I
would hope that the commission -- commission would reject this -- the
petitioner's request for a variance. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's take a break and let the court
reporter change her paper. And let me ask -- we're going to go ahead
and go through lunch here. If you do intend to speak and all the
points you want to make have already been made up here, we wouldn't
mind if you'd just pass. But if you do have something new that hasn't
been put on the record yet, by all means, please come up and say so.
MR. DORRILL: This is Mr. Lyon. Then Dr. Biles will
follow Mr. Lyon. Mr. Lyon, go right ahead, sir.
MR. LYON: My remarks will be more in the line of
questions than answers, I'm afraid, but I don't believe the county
commissioners have before them adequate information on which to base a
decision. There's been some what I believe misinformation and some
mistakes made.
The speaker for the planning staff said that the lot
line had been created by a court order. I'm aware of the lot line for
years prior to the court order. I believe the lot line was drawn as a
phase line for phase two of the -- of the Regency development.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I can actually answer
that one. Up here. Hello. MR. LYON: Hello.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was a phase line for the
condo, but what they mean, the court created it as a property line.
It was a part of one big lot, but when it -- when the foreclosure
happened, the court drew a line and said this is the new lot line, the
new legal property.
MR. LYON: With all due respect, I think you're in
error. The lot line --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Present your case, and
let's move on.
MR. LYON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's a minor point, in any case, who
established the line. The line is there.
MR. LYON: The line has been given some credibility
presumably by a court order. It's my opinion that's not so.
One of the expert witnesses talked about a parking
structure three or four stories high but couldn't tell us how many
parking places there would be. I find that hard to understand, and I
think it's a question that your board is entitled to. And -- and an
expert who knows the size of a building should be able to tell you how
many parking places there are.
I'd like to ask whether or not all of the owners of the
abutting properties have been notified in writing of this hearing.
I've talked to some here today who have not been.
Have you -- has the planning staff any idea of the total
floor area of all of the buildings that are proposed to be built?
Have they taken that into consideration? Is there any other tract of
land on Marco Island with such intensity of development?
The zero lot line of Club Regency that was referred to
as preexisting -- if there was a zero lot line, it preexisted only
because it was a phase line rather than a subdivision line. The deed
under which this property was originally deeded said that there would
be no subdivision of the property.
Those are my questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles and then Mr. Kramer.
MS. BILES: For the record, Fay Biles. I'm president of
the Marco Island Taxpayers' Association. And I agree with
Commissioner Mac'Kie; don't believe everything you read in the paper,
and don't read John Lundsford's articles. I've been accused of
writing a letter to the commissioners. I want to say to you that we
all met together. Joe Coriatchi (phonetic) wrote a letter on behalf
of MICA. Frank Blanchard wrote one on behalf of MAC. We have
realtors. We have -- many people have written letters. I do want to
correct one thing he said also. He alluded or inferred that there was
a high-rise developer that had objected to this. That's not true,
absolutely not true. We have checked into that. I think we all know
who he's alluding to. He had never said a word of complaint.
I think there's a principle involved here that I like --
I would like the commissioners to think about setting a precedent.
What is to prevent any developer from coming in, buying a piece of
property for land use -- they know the configuration. They know
everything about it. They know the code. They know the setback.
They know exactly what is required -- and then coming into the
commissioners and saying, well, now we want to upgrade this and we
want to make more money out of it and, therefore, we need to change
the variance, we need to change other things about it?
I think this is so fuzzy at this point, how many floors,
what the height, of the parking places. I think it's probably time to
go back to the Planning Commission and let them look at this whole
project again. It's been made very fuzzy, and I think you're going to
be setting a precedent if you give a variance for something that no
other property on Marco Island -- Collier, South Collier has a lot of
hotels, a lot of condos. They're attractive. They have obeyed the
variance. Nobody else on Marco has been given that variance. Why
should we now give this property a variance in order to make more
money out of it or whatever? You're cram jamming a lot into that
small property when they knew from the beginning what they had. Those
are my comments. I won't repeat everything else because it's been
said. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kramer. Mr. Kramer and then Mr.
Patterson.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you. My name is Fred Kramer.
here on behalf of the Marco Island Civic Association. Iid like to
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. Iid also ask the
chairman, if I might, if you would allow me and the petitioner would
allow me to take my time to ask several questions of their expert
witness, Miss Cawley.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thatls a little bit out of order, Mr.
Kramer.
MR. KRAMER: Thatls fine, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Perhaps you could get with one of the
representatives that is going to be allowed to -- to have rebuttal at
the end and get your questions asked.
MR. KRAMER: All right. Also, I apologize if I did not
do this. I would like to join with Mr. Volpe in the objections he
raised before the board this morning.
We have a situation where last fall the petitioner
acquired this property in a foreclosure sale. Within three months it
sought a variance for the zoning code. That was before us until this
morning when all of a sudden itls announced that this massive project
for a 64-unit high-rise condominium had overnight changed to a
103-hotel-unit facility. I cannot understand the petitionerls
testimony that this three and a half acres cannot be developed in any
way or any fashion without going to a property line --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Use the hand-held mike if you want to
go over there, please. Itls right behind that --
MR. KRAMER: -- how the only conceivable way to develop
this property bought by the developer with existing law as it is and
knowing the problems is develop a building which now becomes a hotel
again overnight, a zero lot line, a structure 98 feet tall on the
property line. I cannot imagine therels any other facility in the
entire county with a zero lot line with a facility like that. If
there is, Iid stand corrected by the petitioner.
I cannot understand how no reasonable use may be made of
this property unless this 98-foot structure is built on the property
line. I cannot understand therels no ability to develop anything but
a high-rise facility here when the property -- when the property to
the south of it is a garden style two-story facility.
If I understand correctly, then the variance sought is
purely for the area of roughly a hundred feet along the property line
for the structure of a 98-foot building, again, as a hotel. That is
not in accord with the petition that was presented or advertised.
Thank you for your time.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Patterson and then Mr. Savage.
MR. PATTERSON: I waive my right to speak.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Savage, and then Mr. Schmidt will
follow Mr. Savage.
MR. SAVAGE: Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners,
and thank you also for allowing me to speak. Iive been at odds all
morning listening to all these comments. And one of the greatest
things that Fred Kramer just talked about it, one of the biggest items
that hels asked for in the variance is to put a 98-foot high building
on a lot line. If youill look at this orange or pink drawing over
here, you imagine the property that owned -- is owned by the tennis
court people decide they want to build a building on their tennis
court. They have the right to do so according to our laws and our
zoning. What are they going to do? Does this owner have an agreement
with the adjacent property owners so that there's no building going to
be built next door to that nine-story or 98-foot building?
That's one of the biggest factors in the whole project.
He has the legal right to do an RT building, and I think the county
planning people have done a very great job. They have every right to
do those things. This is still free -- not free, excuse me, private
enterprise. And I feel that they have a right to do those things but
don't do those things which are totally out of -- out of the reason,
and that is to build a 98-foot building on a lot line.
I'll show you the GulfviewApartments, which I designed
on Marco Island back in the '70s, and we had a hundred-foot setback,
and it wasn't because we wanted to. It was because we had to, had a
hundred-foot setback on a 20-story building. We had to do that. We
followed the rule, parking garage there three or four stories tall. I
don't know that many people even ever see that parking garage.
Landscaping and the architecture of it was such that it isn't that
noticeable, but it's still set back based on the law.
I feel that this man or this woman or whomever it is in
this project probably had their set of drawings and wanted to build it
here instead of redesigning and building it for this particular site.
The same thing about conventions. If -- if we have an
architect that's involved in this, can you imagine putting the
convention facility out on the beach when it should be up near the
area, in my view, like the Marriott hotel or some of the other hotels
have their facility near the traffic center where they can control all
those matters and let the rooming units be out on the beach? Those
are many things that are, of course, planning, and I'm not going to
get into that. I'm just saying the legal aspect of a parking garage
on this site along the lot line and a 98-foot building is totally out
of the question and ought to be returned to them for restudy. And I
thank you very much.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. -- Mr. Schmidt.
MR. SCHHIDT: Good morning. I'm John Schmidt. I reside
at 1421 Butterfield Court on Marco. I own three other pieces of
property on Marco including beachfront property.
I will not repeat anything anyone else has said. I have
only two points to make. I do endorse the chairman's questioning, and
I adopt the comments of the first two speakers. The only thing I'll
suggest to this commission -- and forgive me if it's too naive to
suggest -- is we ought to look into whether memberships to an athletic
club at a hotel could be sold to someone who is a nonguest. This may
be a way around things. And I don't know if it's appropriate for the
commission to look at or to advise any other county or state
commission, perhaps the consumer fraud division, if people start
advertising access to this property through these developers. Thank
you very much.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: I believe the next name is Hoai, H-o-a-i.
MR HOAI: I'll waive my right to speak.
MR DORRILL: Thank you. Mr. Bailey, R. E. Bailey.
MR BAILEY: I'll waive my right.
MR DORRILL: Mr. Donnelly.
MR DONNELLY: I'll waive my right to speak.
Mr Donnelly was your final registered speaker.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's safe to say all
three of you were opposed? Okay, okay, just checking.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, we'll now get into the --
into the rebuttal phase. We'll ask each side to limit their rebuttal
to seven minutes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: While Mr. Pires is coming up,
could I ask him to address the athletic club membership that was
raised?
MR. PIRES: I'll address that, if I could. I believe
initially that -- I believe your staff and -- I can't speak for
staff. Mr. Chairman, it may be appropriate to ask staff -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go right ahead.
MR. PIRES: Oh, I'm sorry -- whether or not the
consideration of the parking is a valid consideration with regards to
consideration of the variance. I believe the answer will be no, but I
think it's appropriate to have them indicate that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've been known to spend time on
things that were not valid before.
MR. PIRES: I just wanted to get that on the record, I
think.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Furthermore, with regards --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Did we get an
answer from staff on that? I agree, it's a legitimate question.
MR. REISCHL: This is a request for variance. The
conditional use was withdrawn, and parking is usually not a
consideration of a variance request.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Additionally with regards to the nature of
the variance request, once again, it's an approximately
220-linear-foot dimension, 145.82 feet in a north-south direction on
the portion that fronts South Collier Boulevard. That lot line is
actually about 65 feet from the right-of-way line of South Collier, so
the building will be set back at least 65 feet from South Collier, but
we need the variances along that lot line. And then there's -- say
you have 145.82 feet north-south, approximately 75 feet east-west for
a total distance of 220 feet that the variance is needed solely for
the tower portion of this project.
Once again, your staff has indicated it is a reduction.
We have heard no competent substantial evidence contrary to that
provided by your staff or competent substantial evidence provided by
Hiss Cawley. I believe the case law is clear that when the petitioner
meets the burden of proof, as we have, by, number one, receiving a
favorable recommendation by the staff on the initial application; two,
a favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission; three, a
further favorable recommendation today by staff of the revised
request; four, expert testimony from Hiss Cawley, that is all
competent, substantial evidence. No other experts have been
testifying here to rebut or contradict any of that testimony provided
by those experts.
Mr. Cronin represents, I believe he said, Club Regency.
I believe that he testified -- mentioned about a tower structure. The
proposed tower structure he mentioned, if the project was able to go
ahead by a former owner as a successor developer, then that might be
questionable. It wasn't the same location. That's -- the SDP that is
referred to was right in this location (indicated). Dimensionally
this tower is located about approximately 160 feet from the nearest
residential unit situated on the Club Regency parcel. And this is at
a diagonal in this direction (indicated).
Just to make it clear, the parking is -- no variance is
requested for the parking area. We're asking for a variance without
any conditions. We will comply fully with the Land Development Code
of Collier County, and if building commences, we'll file for a site
development plan when we use the property as zoned RT for all of its
permitted and permissible uses under the RT district. We don't
believe there is any relevance to attempting to impose any conditions,
and the variance should be granted as requested without any
conditions.
As a point of note as far as other clubs, other hotels,
it hasn't been brought up by any of the members yet or the residents,
but Marriott's Marco Island Resort, for example, offers a tennis
membership. Residents are welcome to join, so residents of Marco
Island currently enjoy that. Obviously that must be an accessory
permitted use of a hotel. The Hilton Marco Island Beach Resort has a
fitness center. Residents may join that. And those are clubs that
those hotel facilities have that apparently are customary accessory
uses.
But, once again, we will only use this facility as
permitted by the zoning -- by the zoning ordinance. And if a
determination is made those are not proper, then those determinations
will be made by your staff or by code enforcement whatever the
permissible range of uses are we will utilize on this site.
I find it also interesting to note the comments by The
Chalet that no variances -- no variances ever. Their carport, which
is located right about 5 feet from this lot line, received a variance
in 1991. Apparently there must have been some determination made by
them that it was appropriate to obtain it. But this might be a
different situation. So they have a variance. They don't want anyone
else to have one. Once again, this extremely irregular lot line, as
testified to by Miss Cawley and as provided for by Florida cases,
constitutes a classic hardship.
Mr. Savage mentioned about a three- or four-story
parking structure. This will not be visible from the road. It is
tucked behind the building. Once again, the testimony was from Miss
Cawley this is the minimum variance necessary to obtain a reasonable,
practical use of the property. The property is not practically --
effectively can be utilized without it. It is not a self-created
hardship under Florida law. And we request that you grant the
variance as modified by the site plan that we have before you today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Mr. Pires, on that
point, if the variance were not granted, how would the footprint and
external impacts of the building change?
MR. PIRES: I can't answer that. It's speculative, once
again. We know no other reasonable, practical use of the property can
be utilized other than with granting this variance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask that is the only
reason I see to grant this variance is because building the building
parallel to the street on a north-south orientation as opposed to an
east-west is advantageous to the properties on either side. That's
the only reason I see for granting this variance. If what you're
telling me is that -- you know, the reason I come to that is you're
requesting the variance to go this way because otherwise you're going
to have to push along the northern property line towards the beach.
MR. PIRES: That's correct.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: So instead of 98 feet this way,
we're going to have 98 feet going this way, which is going to have a
much more adverse effect on the properties to the north and maybe a
more adverse effect to the south or probably a wash -- I don't know --
to the south. I really can't visualize it as well. MR. PIRES: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's why I'm asking. I need
to know --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You will also be able to see
parking from the road that way, too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's going to put the parking in
the front on the left as I look at the --
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, I believe Hiss Cawley testified
one of the considerations in citing it was to -- taking that into
account.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without the variance I don't like
it better than I do with the variance and that it just -- and I don't
think the people to the north are going to like it better. That's
just a statement.
MR. PIRES: Thank you for your comments. We request the
approval of the variance as provided for by the site plan for that
approximately 220-foot-linear dimension to zero --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick item. Just quick
housekeeping item. I don't know that we recognized our staff as
experts, which we need to get on the record.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Duly noted.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Volpe, you're going to handle the
other side?
MR. VOLPE: Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Commissioner Hancock, what I heard you say was that the only reason
that you would see for the granting of the variance is that it would
be advantageous to the adjoining property owners. That is not -- I
repeat, that is not one of the criteria for the grant of a variance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a real-world criteria, Mr.
Volpe, that we have to deal with. I'm using it as a consideration in
addition to what the applicant has put on the record.
MR. VOLPE: I understand that, Commissioner Hancock. I
appear as a legal representative, and from a legal perspective that is
not what the criteria --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine. I'll consider it in
conjunction with the other items the applicant has presented here
today.
MR. VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for clarification
as to exactly what variances are under consideration this morning?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You may. Mr. Reischl, are we down to
three variances on this?
MR. REISCHL: Four.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Four. Explain them to Mr.
Volpe, please.
MR. REISCHL: There's a variance along the building line
that runs parallel to South Collier Boulevard of various depths. I
don't know if they have the letters on the map over there, but where A
is, that's a request for a 46-foot variance to the 98-foot building
here. Where letter B is, that's a request for 23 feet. And C at this
portion of the building where the -- it architecturally protrudes
there, that's a request for a 44-foot variance. And then along the
south property line where you can see the blue property line in the
pink building, that's where it goes down to a 49-foot variance
request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I -- could I make available
to you this -- as part of the packet that was given to us that
highlights that information, because it should be made clear to you?
MR. VOLPE: I do have a copy of that. I just was not
clear in the discussion which four we were talking about. At one
point we were talking about two, and it was 220-feet-lineal variance.
I just wanted to make sure I understood which were the four specific
variances.
In many instances what I think we have heard commented
on was that these reductions would be 46 feet was a reduction to --
for one, a reduction of 26 feet for another. As a part of the
criteria, the question is whether this is the minimum variance that
would be required in order to meet the criteria of your Land
Development Code. I don't believe that there has been any testimony
that these are the minimum variances that would be required.
Again, the evaluation of the staff was made based upon
this building being used as a 64-unit residential multifamily
residential unit. The findings of fact that had been made -- the
findings of fact that had been made by your CCPC and those that are
included in your agenda package were based upon a -- a different
consideration than the consideration which is -- you're being asked to
make this morning.
In closing I just simply would emphasize that there are
the criteria for the granting of the variance. One of the criteria is
that this must be a land-related hardship. I submit that there has
not been substantial competent evidence from the petitioner, whose
burden it is, that there is, in fact, a land-related hardship.
Miss Cawlay testified that this would allow for a
reasonable use of the property. It doesn't -- for an economic
perspective that there may be a better use of this property by
allowing this building to be built with a variance which is a
reduction of 46 feet. I think if you look at the record and the
testimony that has been introduced this morning, what we have is
perhaps an economic benefit, or we may have a perception that this
variance will benefit adjoining property owners. But we have not, in
my opinion, and I submit based upon the evidence, established any one
of the criteria that would be required from a legal perspective to
justify the grant of the variance. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions for Mr. Volpe?
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, if I might for the record, I
was aware of Commissioner Hancock's concern about neighboring property
owners. And with all due respect to Mr. Volpe, there is a provision
in our code and part of the variance criteria that talks about that
the grant of the variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood.
So looking at surrounding properties and how the building might fit in
and whether or not it would cause a problem to the neighbors I think
is a criteria that's in the code, and I wanted to clear that up for
the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Volpe, I think Mr. Pires
referred to Coral Gables v. Geary a couple of times as a cite case for
this. Do you have any familiarity with that? Have you seen that? In
your reference that you don't think legal substantial evidence has
been -- competent substantial evidence has been put forth, are you --
do you have any familiarity with that case, and do you think it does
or does not apply here?
MR. VOLPE: I'm not sure if Mr. Pires cited that case as
it related to a self-created hardship or whether it was on the issue
of competent substantial evidence. It is my opinion that the
authority is that the self-created hardship is not, in fact, the basis
upon which a property owner can seek a variance.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I want to handle that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I got a problem with this
self-created.
MR. VOLPE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The property owner purchased a
piece of property that had a property line created by a court action
not involving the current property owner. The property owner did not
create the hardship. A court action created the property line that is
being referred -- would you let me get a question answered here,
folks?
MR. VOLPE: I don't disagree with that statement, Mr.
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because we're saying
self-created, you're losing me a little bit there.
MR. VOLPE: In the eyes of the law --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Volpe. He may not have
created it, but he assumed it with the purchase of that property.
MR. VOLPE: I was simply going to clarify that under the
recorded cases where a person purchases property with full knowledge
of what the configuration is and what the limitations are, the cases
do hold that that is, in fact, a self-imposed hardship, perhaps not
self-created, but self-imposed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can't help but remember all of
the single-family lots at Lely Barefoot Beach who are of such odd
configurations. People purchased those lots knowing the size and
shape of the lot and as soon as they meet with their architect/builder
find out, gee, I can't build what I want, and they're immediately in
here asking for a variance of some sort. And there's not one yet that
we've not granted.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we're not discussing those
today.
MR. VOLPE: Hay I just -- just one last comment.
Commissioner Hancock, the Coral Gables versus Geary does, in fact,
talk about where the property has been purchased with certain
limitations that that is, in fact, a self-created hardship.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Volpe.
MR. VOLPE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: With that I'll close the public
hearing. We've set here through quite some time listening to all of
this. There's a few common threads in this discussion that need to be
brought out. And the main point is that we're discussing the variance
and do they deserve a variance or do they not deserve a variance. And
there's been a number of points raised that are very pertinent to that
question.
First of all, I think it's very important, and I think
it is competent substantial evidence that the hardship was imposed by
the court before the property owner bought the property. Therefore,
as we have heard, he assumed that hardship and, therefore, it is a
self-imposed hardship. We heard substantial competent evidence. I'll
get to you, Commissioner Constantine, in just a second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, the other thing that we have seen
that is substantial competent evidence is that a -- a development
could occur on this site that would be reasonable and economical and
would not require a variance. It can be done. It's just a matter of
rearranging the footprint of the building. So this -- this variance
request then becomes a variance of convenience and not hardship. And
that's very important, as also we've heard substantial competent
evidence to that effect.
I need to ask Mr. Reischl one question. We saw earlier
in the discussion the -- a sort of a proposed site plan which had a
large amount of impervious area. Is there a minimum requirement of
pervious area?
MR. REISCHL: Of the open space -- this lot is too small
to qualify for the open-space requirement.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So they could pave the whole thing --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Variance or not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- as long as they take care of their
water management.
MR. REISCHL: Well, they couldn't go farther then the
coastal construction line. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
MR. REISCHL: But there is buffers that are required.
There are, you know, various landscape -- interior landscaping that's
required.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Because of -- of the -- the
items of substantial competent evidence that I have cited, I'm going
to vary from normal procedure here and make a motion to deny this
variance.
Commissioner Constantine, you had a comment?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I completely
understand the residents' concerns, particularly the suggested use. I
think what was withdrawn today, the conditional use, the idea of
having as much traffic and as much activity there that isn't normally
necessarily associated with a hotel or a condo development I think was
a valid thing. That was withdrawn today. We get down to just the
variance issue.
You mentioned two things, one, the assumed hardship as
you referred to. And I -- I think Commissioner Matthews' point has a
great deal of merit. When the individuals have purchased that
property in north Naples, they had under your scenario assumed that
hardship, and we should not grant that variance, but we have because
they otherwise have a piece of property on which they cannot build a
home, which is --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not a reasonable home.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A reasonable home, which is
the zoned use of that property. And today we had someone whom we
recognized as an expert testify, again, that you could not use this
for -- have a reasonable use for this property simply by changing the
footprint. So I disagree with you on that point, I guess.
I have a number of concerns, but I don't know that we're
-- I think they are meeting the hardship requirement, and I'm not
sure we heard substantial competent evidence to contradict that. And
I'm kind of grasping for a way to find if there is, but I -- I haven't
come up with it. And we have -- we talked about parking, and that
really doesn't apply here. If someone wants to put in more than the
minimum, we don't prohibit that, whether it's with hurricane code or
with parking code or with green space. If they want to put in more --
I don't disagree with you. It raises a red flag with me, but there's
nothing illegal about that. We can't prohibit that from happening.
And so -- you're right. I'm looking for something to
grab on to here, but I can't find it from a legal perspective. And
what this board had -- and we haven't had any for awhile, but we had a
little streak, and prior to when we were on the board in 1991 and '92
and I think into '93 of things that were turned down and then
overturned in court because there wasn't a legal means for which they
were turned down. And I haven't been able to grab something here that
I feel is a legal means to decline that, because I think they are
meeting the hardship requirement, and in order to turn that back we
have to have something to hang on to.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And if I can respond to that, I would
say that they can build a hotel in here without asking for a variance,
and they can put in all the parking that they want. They can put in
all of the accessory uses that they are allowed to by law, and they
can do all of that and accomplish their goals without having a
variance. And that's my response. And if they want to do that,
that's fine. Power to them. They've got a legal right to do that.
It's RT zoning and they can do it. But I'm just saying if you'll look
at the property line there, you can already see that this is a -- a
bad situation because it is such a chopped-up property line. And what
we're being asked to do is take a bad situation and simply exacerbate
it by putting a hundred-story building -- hundred foot -- excuse me,
hundred-foot building --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a motion, Commissioner
Norris?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- on a property line.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, did you have
something you were going to --
MR. WEIGEL: I do. Thank you, and you're right. It
doesn't come up particularly often, and so when we roll up our sleeves
and go through them, I think it's important to -- to look at the
procedure as it's presented in the -- in the staff report and the
agenda item. And I would urge you to refer back to the agenda item.
Particularly the criteria and questions for criteria for a variance
are shown on pages 6 and 7 of your agenda item. I'm not going to
recite all the questions, but it's up to the board to determine the
answers. The answers that appear in the agenda item are staff
response based upon what's been before the staff. That's not
necessarily determinative of the board's response or answer to those
questions based upon the testimony and all of the materials that have
been presented to you today.
As you look at those -- as you look at those questions
-- and a couple of them have been discussed or even paraphrased by
Chairman Norris, Commissioner Constantine. I'll lead you to two. The
second one is particularly little letter D on page 6, I think it is.
And the other question I think is on page 7. And these two questions
are -- and, in fact, have partially been discussed by this board as it
approached the motion. Can the property be developed under current
zoning that is compatible with neighboring properties? The board will
make that determination as part of its full determination as to
whether a variance is appropriate here.
The second question -- and this harkens to little letter
D on page 6 -- is the variance requested or variances requested the
minimal variance necessary for the reasonable use of the land,
building, or structure. Again, you're charged with the responsibility
to answer that question in context with the other questions which form
a basis for a determination as to whether a variance should exist.
Hardship alone is a factor. You have your own determination to make
based upon the information presented to you and the testimony today as
to whether a hardship exists and at whose creation. But that's just
one factor of several factors as you make your determination, ultimate
determination, as to whether a variance should be granted. And the
rest of those questions there, to the extent that you wish to address
them on the record, may be of some assistance to you there. I can't
give you the answers. The answers are yours. Okay?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Many of the people in the
audience came here today to fight a much larger battle than we're
discussing now. It was a battle over a private club. It was -- I
call the proverbial ten pounds in a five-pound bag argument. And I
think you were justified in -- in your concern. You were justified in
being here.
A lot of that has been removed. We can sit up here and
talk all day about parking and about whether it's -- it can or can't
be permitted. Even though it's outside the variance, I think it's a
reasonable discussion to have, because it addresses a lot of the
concerns of people that are here. I feel those concerns have been
addressed through our code enforcement and zoning issues that disallow
that type of use at a hotel. That's been made very, very clear. So
I'm comforted in -- the private club scenario is no longer a facet of
this.
When I look at this -- when we talk about a land-related
hardship, my -- my planning background tells me something very, very
simple. When you have an irregular-shaped lot that squeezes the
footprint down to a small size, you have two options. You can either
request setbacks on the periphery, or you can go up. We have a
combination here of an irregular -- an irregular lot with a
hundred-foot high maximum. These petitioners made a choice. And that
choice was rather than request a variance on height due to the small
footprint, they would push the building to the south and do a zero
setback adjacent to tennis courts. Of those two choices for people
that live on Marco Island if they were going to request a variance, I
think that was the better of the two.
It's been said that they don't need a variance. Build
what you've got. Yet this board hasn't taken that position on
residential lots that were oddly configured. And although we will go
after a builder that makes a mistake or an after-the-fact variance,
when you're given the opportunity on the front end to make that
decision, it makes it easier. So we've done it for residential lots
that have had a lot fewer problems than the shape of this one. I
think the conditions are very much the same. What would result if no
variance is granted is a -- a less desirable footprint height and
extension of building to the people to the north and possibly to the
south. And I'm not in favor of doing that. So I'm not going to
second the motion to -- to deny this request. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Bettye.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not going to second the
motion either, and if the motion maker chooses to withdraw the motion,
I'd like to make a substitute.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not going to second it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. My motion is going to die for a
lack of a second. But let me explain what's happening here. The
original proposal is for 64 units of condominium and a private club.
And the reason for the private club was to get people other than who
lives in the condominium access to the beach. Everybody knows that.
There's no sense trying to hide that. Okay. So we -- we have made it
clear that we're not going to approve the private club for the beach
under the conditional use, so that has been retracted.
Now, we have a proposal -- instead of 64 units of
condominium, now we have a proposal for a hotel with many, many extra
spaces of parking. What do you suppose that parking is going to be
used for? The same thing that the private club was going to be used
that we objected to. We're being sandbagged here, folks, and we need
to understand that.
If -- if -- if the property owner wants to live within
the variances, power to him, hotel. If that's what he wants to do, 64
units of condo, fine, just don't give the variance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you think by not granting the
variance that will change anything that they would want to do even if
it is against zoning codes?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. But at least it keeps them within
the code.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I
understand your concern. I don't necessarily disagree, but we need to
frame any objection we have within legal framework.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And what we're being asked.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I did.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure you did. And
that's why I didn't second it, because I'm not sure that it meets the
legal burden.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if I have the
floor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go right ahead.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that we approve the variance
request for the four points only indicated. And I'm -- I'm not sure
that putting the stipulation in for the private club is appropriate or
not because it's a variance. But if our attorney feels that it is
appropriate, I certainly would like to see it in there. But if you
can help me, I don't think it's even appropriate at this point.
MS. STUDENT: Our code does provide that we can put
stipulations in variance resolutions. However, they should be related
to the variance and, therefore, I feel it's not appropriate. And I
feel also since the private club is something you'd have to get a
conditional use for, our code already takes care of that problem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there's a way to tie it
to the variance, Hiss Student. If the motion is stated or the motion
maker will include that the variance -- or the intent of the variance
is not to expand the building footprint to allow for more parking for
the use of a private club at some point down the road, that we can
then make that a stipulation, that a private club will not be a
permitted use due to the granting of this variance. It's thin, but
it's there.
MS. STUDENT: I think that you've made a satisfactory
connection.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. The motion maker accepts
that change.
MR. REISCHL: And also staff would like to request that
a copy of the site plan be attached to show the -- because the
variance is so complicated, the architectural drawing is complicated,
if you could state that the --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll incorporate that also, that
a site plan be included with it. Are we going to get some more?
MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Wayne Arnold for the record.
One of the other conditions that has been discussed is the use of the
property. It is zoned RT and allows for several uses. If the
proposal is contingent upon it being a hotel, that also might be a
condition of the site plan.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I'd rather see it
condos. I'd hate to tie them into a hotel if they will do condos
later. You know, the RT uses are there. I don't want to tie one in,
particularly if it's more intensive than other RT uses.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. If the board doesn't
object, I'd rather not include a requirement for that. So the motion
is to approve variance number 95-29 with a stipulation that the
variance is not to be used to provide excessive parking for the
purpose of a private club, and there was another stipulation which I
didn't get written down that we include a site plan.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Reischl, how are we going
to police excessive parking, the term excessive parking?
MR. REISCHL: The way I understood the stipulation was
excessive parking for a private club. Is that how you worded it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point of the inclusion is to
get it on the record that it's recognized that this has the potential
for an end run, as does every other hotel in Collier County today.
And by getting that on the record, it puts everyone on notice in this
room that if you see little stickers from Fiddler's Creek on windows
in the parking lot, it's time to call the county -- MR. REISCHL: Call code enforcement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and get it enforced. And
that's the intent. You know, how do we -- how do we enforce our code
better?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a complaint-driven
enforcement.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But you see the flaw is that
restaurant patrons can come and use the parking facility and go to the
beach.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Strip down to their skivies and
run out.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just ask the motion maker
-- I want to second the motion, but I wish your stipulation would
just be that the property not be used as a private club.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I don't mind doing that.
Ms. Student, though, suggested that we have something tied to the
variance itself, and Commissioner Hancock has offered wording that
does that which he agrees ties it to the variance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It says the same thing in a much
more wordy fashion. I'm working on my law degree.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have closed this, but --
MR. PIRES: For clarification, if it helps with the
motion maker and the seconder, stipulate that it will not be used for
a private club, we have no problem including that as a stipulation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to second the motion,
and I want to second it based on the fact that all of the variance
criteria that are a part of our code have been met, that the experts
on our staff and the private experts both have indicated that all of
the variance criteria were met, and based on that I second the
motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume you mean that there
are special circumstances and conditions, that the applicant did not
create those conditions, et cetera, et cetera?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
Passes four to one.
AUDIENCE: (Booing).
VOICE: Boo, boo. Go home, guys.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are home.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're in session, ma'am. We're in
session.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know us off islanders.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're in session here, please. Step
down, Herb. We're in session.
MR. SAVAGE: I thought you were in recess. Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As soon as we clear the room, we're
going to proceed with our agenda.
Item #13A4 - Withdrawn by Petitioner
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 96-69, RE PETITION NUA-95-1, ARTHUR C. QUINNELL, P.E.,
REPRESENTING DROP ANCHOR MOBILE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
REQUESTING A NON-CONFORMING USE ALTERATION IN ORDER TO ENABLE UNIT
OWNERS TO REPLACE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING MOBILE HOMES AS NEEDED, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON PAPAYA STREET IN GOODLAND - ADOPTED
Okay. Let's go on to 13(A)(5), petition NUA-95-1.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Chahran Badamtchian from planning staff. This noncomforming is --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Can we wait a few
minutes?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's wait a second for the -- until
they move out, and we can get a little quiet.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's quieter now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a request for a nonconforming
use alteration for a mobile home park in Goodland. This mobile home
park was built in 1940s and 1950s. It contains 3.3 acres with 75
mobile homes for a gross density of 22.7 acres.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm really sorry to
interrupt. In short, this is a mobile home park that's been used for
40 years, and they'd like to put some nice new-type units in there?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They want to place mobile homes which
requires code approval itself. We have done this three times in the
past for three separate mobile homes. This is a blanket request for
all the rest.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have we received any
objection on this?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think you would. Let me just
ask one question on the timing. Would this grant an opportunity to
remove a mobile home and leave it vacant for some period of time, or
is it simply a direct swap?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Just for replacement co-op property --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because the reason I'm asking that
question is because I think that you lose your nonconforming use after
a certain period of time if it's left vacant; isn't that correct?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You have six months. If you leave it
over six months, we lose it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we don't want that situation to
happen.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Mr. Quinnell.
MR. QUINNELL: Art Quinnell. I'm here mostly to answer
any questions you might have. But as of on the front page of the
thing that you have in your packet there, it shows the stipulation
that we're putting right in -- the notice of intent is right on
there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. QUINNELL: And that is -- pretty well will answer
your questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close
the public hearing, I'll go ahead and make a motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have a public speakers on
this one?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, you do not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that we approve petition NUA-95-1.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
That concludes our regular agenda. Commissioner
Matthews, do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Only that I did go to
Tallahassee last week and spent a couple days running around the
senate office building and the house office building. There was a
number of things going on, and I'm hoping that before the end of this
week I can have a memo to each of you of what is going on,
particularly dealing with the partial year ad valorem program that
we're also interested in and some other issues dealing with the school
budget versus the lottery. But I'll be glad to make that information
available to you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, sir.
Item #15
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Only one item. I've asked Mr. McNees to
briefly advise you of the item and my intent to have an item for your
consideration next Tuesday to refund a very small bond issue, about 2
million dollars.
MR. McNEES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mike McNees from
the county manager's office. We just wanted to make you aware today
that the financial advisor brought to staff's attention that we have a
series 1977 guaranteed entitlement bond at issue principal outstanding
of about 2.4 million dollars that they see as a real good refunding
candidate. Net present value savings would be about 120,000. They're
saying we could structure it in such a way to generate about $150,000
in cash up front which would help us in our general fund during the
coming budget year. I wanted to make you aware of it today, because
we're going to do it. We'll explain this to you in great detail next
week.
The financial advisors and bond council are out working
this week on the issue. They've made it clear that if you should
decide next week not to go forward, we're not on the hook for any
expenses. They are proceeding at their own risk. But we didn't want
to bring to you completely packaged and ready to go refunding next
week that you had no knowledge of and wanted you to know that was
happening. And unless you have any major objections, we'll continue
with that process next week, bring that item to you next Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing really except I'd appreciate it if
you, Mr. Chairman, could sign off on a travel request for me to the
Florida local government and finance tax seminar in Orlando in March.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where was that? In Honolulu, did
you say?
MR. WEIGEL: It's a free seminar, transportation not
provided, however. But I need your signature on that, if you would be
so kind.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, do you have anything?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We're adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:17 p.m.
***** 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 96-44 RE THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "SUNGATE CENTER
PUD" - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
AND STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-45 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER
AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WALK PHASE TWO"
See Pages
Item #16A3
APPLICATION FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ARTIFICIAL REEF GRANT FOR THE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY
- IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000.00
See Pages
Item #16A4
DONATE A FAX MACHINE TO THE COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES DIVISION
Item #16A5
CONTRACT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP)
TO PARTICIPATE IN STATEWIDE GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING EFFORT - IN
THE AMOUNT OF, NOT TO EXCEED, $3,000.00
See Pages
Item #16A6
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.560, "BERMUDA ISLAND APARTMENTS", LOCATED IN
SECTION 6, T495, R26E, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION AND ON THE EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST BY LAND ZONED PUD
(VINEYARDS), THE WEST BOUNDARY IS ALSO THE PROPOSED LIVINGSTON ROAD -
WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 96-46 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER
AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "COVENTRY SQUARE"
See Pages
Item #16A8a
RESOLUTION 96-47 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50523-083; OWNER OF
RECORD - DORIS UMBRICHT
See Pages
Item #16A8b
RESOLUTION 96-48 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50612-008; OWNER OF
RECORD - BENITA F. RECIO
See Pages
Item #16A8c
RESOLUTION 96-49 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.50626-075; OWNER OF RECORD
- CAPITOLIS AUSLANDISCHE
See Pages
Item #16A8d
RESOLUTION 96-50 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.50707-014; OWNER OF RECORD
- JOHANNA M. PRINDIVILLE
See Pages
Item #16A8e
RESOLUTION 96-51 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.50717-094; OWNER OF RECORD
- ROSA DE CORES; TERESITA MENDEZ
See Pages
Item #16A8f
RESOLUTION 96-52 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.50727-030; OWNER OF RECORD
- AJUAD ABOU ASALI
See Pages
Item #16A8g
RESOLUTION 96-53 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50804-006; OWNER OF
RECORD - JOHANNA M. PRINDIVILLE
See Pages
Item #16A8h
RESOLUTION 96-54 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50809-033; OWNER OF
RECORD - DOUGLAS M. KELLY
See Pages
Item #16A8i
RESOLUTION 96-55 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50822-033; OWNER OF
RECORD - ZBIGNIEW TOMSZAY AND DORILA M. TOMSZAY
See Pages
Item #16ASj
RESOLUTION 96-56 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50823-045; OWNER OF
RECORD - NOEL H. WILLIA_MS
See Pages
Item #16A8k
RESOLUTION 96-57 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50901-037; OWNER OF
RECORD - DANIEL CASTRO, GISELA CASTRO
See Pages
Item #16A81
RESOLUTION 96-58 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50905-064; OWNER OF
RECORD - EDWARD PELC AND LAVERDA PELC
See Pages
Item #16A8m
RESOLUTION 96-59 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50907-076; OWNER OF
RECORD - GUISEPPE FALIVENE
See Pages
Item #16A8n
RESOLUTION 96-60 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50927-010; OWNER OF
RECORD - FLOREAL DE LA GARZA
See Pages
Item #16A9 - This item has been deleted
Item #16A10
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "BERNIER ESTATE"
Item #16All
RESOLUTION 96-61 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER
AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE,
REPLAT BLOCK C"
See Pages
Item #16A12
FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN HARSH UNIT TWELVE" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16A13
FINAL PLAT OF "NORTH NAPLES MEDICAL PARK" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16B1
ADJUSTMENTS TO ROAD CAPITAL BUDGET
Item #1682
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING SERVICES
FOR THE RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD FOUR-LANING PROJECT - IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $4,900.00
See Pages
Item #1683
CHANGE ORDER #5 FOR BID 94-2263 FOR THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SIX LANING
IMPROVEMENTS, (JCT. GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO JCT. C.R. 31) - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $12,634.64 AND NEW 10% CHANGE ORDER AUTHORIZED
See Pages
Item #1684
CHANGE ORDER #5 FOR THE C.R. 951 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BID NO. 95-2320
FOR ADDITIONAL UTILITIES WORK - IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,742.00 AND NEW 10%
CHANGE ORDER AUTHORIZED
See Pages
Item #1685
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT TO NTC DEVELOPMENT, LTD., DEVELOPER
OF CARLTON LAKES PUD
See Pages
Item #16C1
AUTHORIZATION THAT THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OPERATE
ADDITIONAL SUHMER CAMPS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
Item #16C2
CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH OCEAN STATE LEMONADE COMPANY FOR THE
OPERATION OF A FOOD VENDING CART AT THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC FACILITY
AND THE IHMOKALEE RECREATION/AQUATIC FACILITY IN RESPONSE TO RFP
#95-2448
See Pages
Item #16C3
BID #95-2467 FOR PRINTING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION LEISURE LINE
BROCHURE AWARDED TO NEWSPAPER PRINTING COMPANY OF FORT MYERS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $51,675.95
Item #16D1
COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY DECLARED SURPLUS; AUCTION TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY,
FEBRUARY 17, 1996
Item #16D2
CONTRACT TERMINATED WITH WATERMAN CHEMICAL AND RE-AWARDED UNDER BID
#95-2398 TO CARUS CHEMICAL COMPANY FOR POTASSIUM PERHANGANTE FOR THE
UTILITIES WATER DEPARTMENT
Item #16D3 - This item has been deleted
Item #16D4
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
See Pages
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-117
Item #16E2
CONTRACT WITH NAPLES AREA CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU FOR CATEGORY
B, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT REVENUE FOR PROMOTING COLLIER COUNTY DURING THE
OFF SEASON
See Pages
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1993 REAL PROPERTY
No's. Dated
236 01 24/96
1995 REAL PROPERTY
183-186 01 24 - 02 01/96
191-194 01 24 - 02 06/96
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
53-56 01 12 - 01 30/96
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:
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan