BCC Minutes 05/27/1997 RREGULAR MEETING OF HAY 27, 1997 OF THE
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Pamela S. Mac'kie
Barbara B. Berry
ALSO PRESENT: Hike HcNees, Interim County HAnager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, going to call to order the May
27th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners this morning.
Is the Reverend Larry Sims here yet this morning? Reverend Sims
apparently is running a little bit late, so Mr. McNees, if I could ask
you to start us off with the invocation followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
MR. MCNEES: Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings this
morning as we gather to conduct the business of this county
government. We stop this morning to remember those who have made it
possible for us to be here, as we did yesterday in pausing to honor
Memorial Day. We ask your guidance today and wisdom as we make the
decisions that will shape the future of this county. We ask these
things in Jesus' name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. McNees, and good morning.
MR. MCNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
We have no changes to the agenda for you this morning.
We have provided you one substitute executive summary. A
replacement for item 8(B)(1). We apologize for the late arrival of
this.
It's -- the item was one that was time sensitive and we rushed to
get it on the agenda and, frankly, it didn't meet our typically high
standards for clarity and we have rewritten it for you this morning
and --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Boy, do I agree.
MR. MCNEES: -- and have given you one that, hopefully, you'll
understand a little bit better and we can explain that all when we get
to that item, other than that we have no other changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one abstention. I'm sorry, give me
just one second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under item 10, if we could add 10(B).
I just want to have a discussion on community transportation. It may
or may not require action.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, Commissioner Hac'kie, that abstention.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's 16(A)(2). I have a conflict. I've
done some work previously, don't currently represent them, but I've
done some work for them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So Commissioner Hac'kie will be abstaining
from 16(A)(2).
I have no further changes to the agenda.
Do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we
accept the agenda, and consent agenda with changes as noted.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
by saying aye.
Opposed?
Seeing none.
Motion and second. All those in favor signify
We have no approval of minutes.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MAY 27, 1997 AS BARRON COLLIER HIGH SCHOOL
CHOIR CELEBRATION DAY - ADOPTED
We are to proclamations, and this morning it's a pleasure to
recognize the Barren Collier High School Choir Celebration Day. Ms.
Kelly Hardman Parker is here.
Ms. Parker, if I could ask you to come forward with the two
students, Robert Hetrick and Andtea Bergman.
If you could stand up here and face the camera and be duly
embarrassed while I read this proclamation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want singing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can line that up for a little bit later.
Well, not too much later, you graduate next week.
It's my pleasure to read the following proclamation.
Whereas the Barren G. Collier High School Choir was selected to
represent the State of Florida and Collier County in the National
Festival of States in Washington, District of Columbia, May 9 through
12, 1997; and
Whereas, the choir, under the direction of Kelly Hardman Parker,
was selected on the basis of recommendations from the state music
officials, superior performance ratings, and past competition results;
and
Whereas, this honor recognizes the talents of this ensemble and
exemplifies the dedication of its members and their instructor to
excellence in music dedication and performance; and
Whereas, the National Festival of States has been recognized by
the District of Columbia, the United States Navy Memorial Foundation,
and the National Park Service, and continues a tradition of saluting
significant historical events; and
Whereas, the Barren G. Collier High School gave performances to
large and enthusiastic audiences at the United States Navy Memorial,
the John F. Kennedy Center for the Arts, and for the Sunday morning
services at the Washington National Cathedral; and
Whereas, it is fitting and proper to bring special recognition to
this outstanding group of students from the Collier County Public
Schools.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday, May 27th,
1997, be designated Barren Collier High School Choir Celebration Day
in Collier County and encourage all citizens to applaud them for the
honor and significance of this event.
Done and ordered this 27th day of May, 1997. Timothy Hancock,
Chairman.
I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Congratulations.
(Audience applauds.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a photo opportunity here, so.
Just in case the VCR wasn't running at home, we're genna get this
on record, so. Thank you. Congratulations.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you very much. Awfully proud of
you. Congratulations. Proud of you, great job. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If the picture doesn't come out, Herb will do
some house plans for free for all of us.
We're honored to be represented by such a fine group of young
people and, again, congratulations.
Item #5B1
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - NOT PRESENT
Service awards, this morning Ms. Martin was unable to attend as I
have a notation here so we'll move to -- we'll save that award for her
and move to approval of clerk's report. Nothing further.
Item #SB1
PRESENTATION OF THE GOLDEN GATE MASTER PLAN FOR BOARD REVIEW - STAFF
DIRECTED TO RETURN WITH RESOLUTION
Item 8(B)(1) under public works is our next item. That is the
one in which you have the additional agenda. I moved too quickly for
staff there.
Morning, Mr. Bobanick.
MR. BOBANICK: Morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name
is Dave Bobanick, Interim Transportation Director. The executive
summary, which you have before you, is a recommendation of the Golden
Gate beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, and their request for the
following actions.
First, the adoption of the Golden Gate Community Beautification
Master Plan and by resolution amend the Collier Streetscape Master
Plan to reference this document.
Second, a request for the county to fund the annual cost for the
maintenance of the Golden Gate Parkway medians from County Road 951 to
Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Third, a request to approve the proposed median landscape 50/50
funding partnership with the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU to
support the proposed 951 and Santa Barbara Boulevard median landscape
projects.
Fourth, to direct staff to determine the feasibility of the
landscaping of Golden Gate Boulevard during construction of the
scheduled four laning -- four-lane roadway improvement project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Among other things, what is that noise? Is
that from outside or -- oh, the place we were just working on, great.
Well, that worked.
MR. BOBANICK: Apparently, they didn't repair it. The Golden
Gate Beautification Advisory Committee has created the attached
Advisory Committee Landscape Proposal shown on Exhibit A.
It should be noted that in references to the Golden Gate MSTU on
this document, that it should be construed to mean the Golden Gate
Beautification MSTU.
At the committee's last scheduled meeting of May 13th, 1997,
George Botner presented the adopted Collier Streetscape -- Collier
Naplescape Master Plan and the committee presented it to their Golden
Gate Beautification Median Landscape Program.
Mr. Botner not only supported their plan, but agreed to -- that
attaching it and referencing it by resolution to his plan would assist
in providing a more complete countywide landscape program.
On May 20, 1997, the Board of Commissioners was provided with
copies of the Golden Gate Community Roadways Master Plan, and the
Advisory Committee is requesting that the Board of Commissioners
consider attaching or referencing by resolution the master plan, so
that it becomes part of the adopted Collier Streetscape Plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get to the money.
MR. BOBANICK: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get to the money part. How much and who
pays?
MR. BOBANICK: Okay. I just want to point out that historically
the Board of Commissioners has accepted landscape maintenance costs
associated with the county arterial or corridor designated roadway.
The action to take over landscaping maintenance on the Golden
Gate Parkway would amount to $109,400 annually for the maintenance
requirement.
The other item, to enter into the 50/50 funding partnership with
the county and the Beautification Committee would result in a total
obligation to the county of 1.254 or $1,254,600 spread out over the
next four fiscal years.
Also, the county would have an annual maintenance obligation of
$200,000 after fiscal year 2001.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 200,0007
MR. BOBANICK: 200,000 for the 50/50 landscape partnership
proposal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is that on page two of the new staff
report says continuing annual maintenance cost after 2001, 3094.
MR. BOBANICK: That includes the 109,400 referenced above for
accepting the Parkway maintenance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For accepting the Parkway maintenance.
MR. BOBANICK: Giving a total of 200, plus a 109,400 or 309,400.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know Commissioner Constantine had some
comments. Maybe you can bring some clarity to this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Mr. Bobanick said it, but the
Parkway is the only four-lane arterial that's being funded by an MSTU
right now. Any others are done in some sort of partnership up on Pine
Ridge, Vineyards installed it -- I'm sorry the county installed it,
Vineyards is paying the maintenance on a 10-year agreement.
Up on Immokalee Road, did a shared agreement with Collier's
Reserve.
Golden Gate's saying they've put in that whole stretch, about two
miles long, they'd like to share that with the county, but what
they're gonna do with the freed up money, and that's the second
paragraph and you've asked the question on was, is as part of the
Collier Naplescape program, they'd like to see included in there, the
951 -- County Road 951 and Santa Barbara. None of those were included
even in the first 15 years in the plan we have right now, and I think
the objection and I think there's some people here from the Committee
that'll probably back me up this, but I think the objection is there
are roads on that Naplescape Program that don't even exist right now.
We're not sure those should come ahead of places where there are
plenty of people already every day, but that's what that second
paragraph's about.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help me understand the money part, 'cause
basically, because I think this is wonderful and I want to be
supportive. I just want to understand it. As I understand Vineyards,
county put it in, Vineyards is maintaining it for 10 years. Collier's
Reserve --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's actually flipped.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Flipped?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll, they're different. Vineyards and
Collier's Reserve are different. That was one of the problems we had
is we didn't have a standard contract.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I know there's a little bit on
Bayshore that was put in by Windstar that supposedly is being
maintained by the county, but I'll tell you, there's some problems
with that. We need to -- it's not actually happening the way it
should be, but that's the agreement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Talk about the two different issues.
The first one is just the Parkway, and that's been installed, I guess
it was completed four years ago, almost five years ago -- four years
ago, and the final third of that was, but that has been put in through
the HSTU, funded through the HSTU and then maintained through the
HSTU.
So they're asking that much like the other major arterials,
they'd like that shared instead. That would be 109,400 annual.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now, I get that. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But, I don't believe that -- unless you're
not gonna count Collier Boulevard as an arterial that's not correct,
because there's an HSTU on Marco for beautification and they take care
of Collier, and some others as well, but it's a four-lane arterial, as
far as I know, and the distinction as well, when you mentioned
Immokalee Road and Pine Ridge Road, those are not within HSTU's. So,
I mean, there's a difference here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and that's the whole point is
they were never set up as HSTU's.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they've gotten their benefit, anyway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and Golden Gate chose, much
like Marco Island chose to renourish its beach by itself and then
later when we had the tourist tax funds available for that came back
and said, "Geez, can we make this happen? Can you help us out with
this?"
Golden Gate is saying, "Gosh, you know, we went ahead and did it
on our own, at this point we'd like to be treated the same as these
other major arterials have."
Then the second part of that has to do with the other roads.
They're just trying to get into the Collier Naplescape Plan ahead of
roads that don't exist now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And there's a portion of the Parkway, as I
understand it, that the city has taken over maintenance. The part in
front of Bear's Paw. Isn't that right, Mr. HcNees, do you know that?
The city manager told me that, that a portion of the Parkway
maintenance has been taken over by the City of Naples.
MR. HCNEES: I'd have to check that, I don't know.
MR. FABIANO: Yes. That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name, for the record, please.
MR. FABIANO: Steve Fabiano, transportation and landscape
services.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you tell us what portion has been
taken over by the city for maintenance?
MR. FABIANO: I think the city is maintaining that entirely.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought so. I just wanted you to
verify. Now the stretch from Airport -- describe entirely, please,
what part is the city maintaining?
MR. FABIANO: That's from Goodlette Road to Airport Road on
Golden Gate Parkway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- I understand your point exactly. I
have two concerns. One is these were unplanned expenditures in the
overall scheme of roadway landscaping. In other words, we didn't have
Golden Gate Boulevard on the map so to speak, as a target year in the
next four years. So we are, in essence, moving a new project in. Is
that going to adversely affect any of the scheduled projects that are
on the books now?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As far as moving new projects in,
you're talking about the Collier Naplescape?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I'm talking about the phase-in plan for,
you know, we are more or less adopting a plan that gets us to roadway
beautification throughout the urban area and fingers that extend
beyond that and is this an acceleration within that program.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See and that's -- and part of that
discussion will come up under the Naplescape discussion, but, yeah, as
far as prioritizing, we'd like to see something sooner than 15 years
fall in there. Particularly, bump them ahead of roads that don't
exist now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No problem there. I just, again, in the
overall scheme of budgeting --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I want to make sure we're not removing one
and supplanting another. If we are we, I just want to know what we're
removing. There's a fixed number of dollars available.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you talking in fund 301 now, the
Capital Improvement Fund? That's what I'm trying to understand. What
happens to -- we got $500,000 out of the Capital Fund 301, that's
general tax money.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is 10 million short.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is already 10 million short. So is
this in the 10 million short numbers we've already seen or does this
make us ten and a half million short?
MR. BOBANICK: That would be right, yes. As far as the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think all of our beautification plan
falls under that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So is this included --
MR. BOBANICK: As far as the Golden Gate Boulevard project, you
had asked about the Boulevard project and what effect that might have.
The landscaping would have to be added to the four-laning budget, the
construction of that landscaping.
Our current estimates are that to design and landscape that would
cost approximately 1.5 million dollars, so -- or 1.7 million dollars,
I'm sorry, and that would be added to the current construction project
budget.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Am I correct then that the physical roadway is
built out of impact fees, but the landscaping is built out of Fund
3017
MR. BOBANICK: Well, in this case, I believe the landscaping
would probably be built out of 313, which would be gas tax money.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's not even on our list here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I see two funds.
MR. BOBANICK: I'm sorry, excuse me, I do not have any cost for
Golden Gate Boulevard work on that particular list.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The folks from the beautification
district can correct me if I'm mistaken, but my impression is, we just
want to make sure these are included as priorities in that Naplescape.
I think the whole Collier Naplescape thing is going to be a
financial challenge for us. We just want to make sure these are
priorities in there, whether that's the Boulevard or whether that's
951 and that they fall on that list somewhere. And we're not saying,
today, you know, "Gosh, this has to be done in 1998 or else."
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much money are we asking to authorize
today?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we're asking specifically for is
the 109,000 for Golden Gate Parkway and then we'd like to see the
other parts included, so that they're a priority in the Naplescape.
We'd just hate to not have anything there for 15 years. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Understood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only thing that changes is or that's
different here is that if the landscaping of Golden Gate Parkway, if
the materials and maintenance cost again are recommended by the HSTU
or HSBU, that's different than all the other medians. We kind of
plant them with maintenance cost in mind right now.
This one was planted at the desire of the individuals who were
being affected by the taxing district, and probably, it's a beautiful
median. I mean, it far exceeded what we were doing in the county when
I moved here. I mean it was kind of a benchmark, but when it comes to
the maintenance cost, if we find there are some high maintenance
issues there, that we aren't enjoying in other medians or other areas,
again, we need some flexibility in being able to work with the HSBU,
as opposed to being dictated what the general tax base is gonna pay
for maintenance.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and I think we can explore that
at each budget season if we see there's a marked difference between
this and others.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. I just -- I didn't want that going
without being said.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine. I agree with you.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Just an observation here, but looking over
this, and I -- and maybe it's the other area that we ought to be
talking about this, but it seems like as wonderful as all of this
median landscaping is, it seems like it's taking on a life of its own,
and there's a lot of concern out there that I have to raise as well.
I know that this basically concerns the areas within the urban area;
am I not correct?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Predominantly, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: There is concern, of course, with outlying
areas that get involved with the landscape maintenance in their
medians and just exactly again, maybe this comes over -- under the
next section of the actual Naplescape Project itself, but there is a
concern over going for funds, that are matching fund kind of things.
Where does that fit in here? Does it apply at all in this particular
area? Because I think on Davis Boulevard there is something matching
funds. How does that fit with this or does it fit all?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With Davis, were trying to get some state
grant money.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. But how does that affect any other
areas?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that is a general question that is
probably more appropriate under the Streetscape discussion.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: For the other -- Okay. But I didn't know if
that would -- if there was anything in that money that would affect
this?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not this project, per se, no.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because what we're talking about -- this
action, if I understand you correctly -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.
Bobanick, this action basically is to assume maintenance costs in a
cost-sharing proposal of $109,000 a year and to place Golden Gate
Boulevard into the Streetscape Master Plan, that we're going to
discuss later, as a priority road project. Have I misstated that in
any way, Mr. Bobanick?
MR. BOBANICK: I believe you're referring to Golden Gate Parkway.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You said boulevard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Parkway for maintenance but boulevard for
future --
MR. BOBANICK: Boulevard for consideration for construction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. 951 and Santa Barbara also would then
be included roadways for future landscaping. MR. BOBANICK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The decisions on whether to fund those and how
to fund them come at a later date. This just gives us an idea of the
overall cost of the project, should we go down that path, which is
anticipated if we put it in the plan.
Have I misstated or mischaracterized any element of this
decision?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't believe so.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's hard to tell based on the staff
report, to be perfectly honest.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the staff report almost applies specific
action to a dollar value, and I think staff was trying to give us a
picture of what the out-year cost is gonna be if we go that direction.
I think that's the distinction.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I may clarify somewhat, the staff's
recommendation regarding Golden Gate Boulevard, which maybe we need to
separate a little bit from this discussion.
The staff's recommendation for Golden Gate Boulevard is that you
direct them to review the feasibility of including that. It doesn't
say -- we're not asking you to construct Golden Gate Boulevard.
As Commissioner Berry mentions today, there are a lot of issues
with Golden Gate Boulevard, all the way up and including the
discussion of providing what is essentially an urban service, which is
a median landscape to folks who may not -- I understand there are many
who do, there are maybe many who do not and that may be something we
need to study. We don't know.
We're only asking for your direction to review that and bring to
you recommendations. We're not asking you to approve that project
today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'm still kind of struggling with the
question of whether it's appropriate to take more general county funds
to fund something that's within an MSTU. That just doesn't sound
appropriate on the face of it and I need some reassurance that what
we're doing is the right thing, because this MSTU was set up
specifically to do this job and now they're saying well, let's tap the
general taxpayer and do it and I don't know if that's appropriate.
MR. MCNEES: The best analogy I could give you and it's not an
exact analogy, but it would be the Marco Beach renourishment MSTU that
was created when their -- the folks on Marco were essentially ahead of
the game, in terms of beach renourishment and when a countywide
funding source became available, meaning the tourist tax, we then
sought to refund those MSTU bonds and take over that debt service with
a countywide revenue source when essentially the rest of the county
caught up to the beach renourishment bandwagon.
A similar argument could be made here for median beautification.
This MSTU was ahead of the rest of the county and did their
beautification and now they're saying, "Gee, now that this has become
a countywide priority, couldn't we get our maintenance funded
countywide like everybody else -- most of the other medians do," and
that, I think that's a fair analogy.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's -- I understand that, but
then you're left with the other beautification MSTU's that are not
receiving general finances. So what is the proposal? Are we gonna
fund -- I don't know that we're gonna fund one of them without funding
all of them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my concern is that it seems like the
action we're taking today is a benchmark that will incorporate all
MSTU's into the county general fund, so --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think so because it's a major
arterial. I mean, you look at St. Andrews Boulevard, you look at -- I
mean, you look at the definition of our streets and the MSTU's as a
whole, aren't major arterials. So there is a distinction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think another important point is that
the people in Golden Gate are -- if this were a developer coming to us
and making us the same offer, we've accepted that twice, and now what
the people in Golden Gate have done is organize to speak with one
voice like a developer did at the Vineyards and Collier's Reserve who
came in and said, "I'll do this if you'll match it with me" and I
think we owe them the same deal that we have been giving to
developers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In my opinion, this needs to be meshed with a
policy decision by this board and a very clear policy decision by this
board as to what we are going to fund maintenance costs of and you
have said major arterial. Are there minor arterials or collectors
that we're currently paying for the maintenance of?
MR. BOBANICK: Within the county, they're all major arterials.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we paying for landscape maintenance in
the medians of those out of general county dollars?
MR. BOBANICK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's really, I think what we're getting to
or being requested here. My concern, and I don't know that I can move
forward today specifically until I know this, is to clarify the role
of the MSTD, and those other medians, we have the flexibility for good
or bad to reduce maintenance costs if we need to in a given year.
If there's an MSTD to make those recommendations, to me there's a
little problem there, because, you know, to this date, they have had
absolute control over the maintenance dollars spent on that median.
How it looks is a direct reflection of their efforts and
recommendations to this board, although we have had final authority, I
don't think we've ever denied their request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it was their money.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was their money.
MR. FABIANO: Commissioners, their money is consistent, though,
with the $50,000 a mile that the county presently pays for average
arterial roadways and that contract of a 110,000, the cost to you,
reflects that same dollar amount.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's my point, though, is that we
need, if we're gonna do this, we're kind of making a hybrid here where
one doesn't need to exist, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you that that's -- and
that's what I said before, that's something I think needs to be
reviewed annually through your budgeting process.
It's consistent now, and if at some point, it gets to be where
it's out of whack, then obviously we'd need to deal with that.
The irony here is the existing MSTU would like to still collect
their funds and be able to on their own beautify some of those minor
roads we're talking about, and pay for that cost themselves, and what
they're just trying to do is improve the overall area and find a way
to make their money go further.
So as long as we're consistent with what we're doing elsewhere in
the county, it frees up the money they're collecting, they're taxing
themselves to do Santa Barbara, 951, or whatever other roads they
choose to do.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, realistically, nobody's gonna be
surprised, since you guys tease me about being consistent in my theme,
that Davis triangle -- that I hope the Davis triangle is gonna do
exactly this and come up with some way to come to the county and ask
for matching funds and same thing on Bayshore Drive.
So you're right to see this as an ongoing precedent, but I think
it's an appropriate one because we've done it with developers.
MR. FABIANO: I'd also like to clarify for the board that the
110,400 -- the $109,400 is also gonna come back as the matching funds
to the board for those other roadways. They're trying to release that
110,000 for maintenance and give it right back to you for the
construction of those phases of 951, phase one and two and Santa
Barbara Boulevard phase one and two. So they're bringing back that
110,000 roughly to you again for those projects.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'kie -- she didn't
understand it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I don't understand it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're not trying to make a tax go
away on themselves. They're still going to opt to tax themselves --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For other purposes, sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, gonna put it into other
projects.
MR. BOBANICK: For other projects in their beautification
district.
MR. FABIANO: When those projects are complete, then they will go
back to the Master Plan and do their internal roadways with that
110,000 released money, again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'kie, I do feel like we need
to caution people, you know, this action is -- if this is opening
Pandora's box, if everyone who planted a tree in the median's gonna
show up on the doorstep, saying, "We want remuneration or we want
repayment," then I'm gonna vote against it.
The simple reason is if this is an isolated situation that fits
neatly into the county's program, that's fine, but to date we are
doing roadway landscaping and beautification consistent with widening
projects. Not retroactively going back and snapping up little
segments here and there that people individually or privately did and
applying county dollars to them.
So I don't agree that this action opens it up for everyone who
has looked at a segment with their own consideration or that existing
roadways all of sudden, are going to pop in and say, "Pick up our tab,
now."
They're individual decisions. We'll make them budgetary year to
year, but I -- you know, again I didn't want to create the -- I don't
want to create from my position the idea that if you planted a tree in
a median, you can turn it over to the county now that you're done with
it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask Mr. Weigel a quick
question.
Mr. Weigel, this is consistent with what we're doing on other
major arterials, but does this in any way set a legal precedent? Does
this require us to do anything else, if we do this?
MR. WEIGEL: No, it does not. It's clearly within the policy
province the expenditures are in.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, how many speakers do we have on
this?
MR. MCNEES: You have three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If there's no objection, let's go to the
public speakers.
MR. MCNEES: Your first registered speaker is Cheryle Newraan, who
will be followed by Sabina Musci.
MS. MUSCI: If you don't mind, it was the other way around. I'm
Sabina Musci from the Beautification Advisory Committee and I was
going to speak first, and, actually, the commissioners and staff have
already said everything I was going to say, which pleases me, so I
don't have to stay up here very long.
I just wish that you would consider this favorably. We do want
to free up our money. We're not, like the commissioner says, doing
away with our taxes. We're still going to be taxed. We just want to
do more and this would enable us to eventually do all our internal
roadways and that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.
MR. MCNEES: Cheryle Newraan, and your last speaker would be Glenn
Wilt.
MS. NEWMAN: Good morning, I hope you don't mind if I read this,
because I do much better, if I read what I wrote. Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Give your name, please.
MS. NEWMAN: Yes, I will. For the record, my name is Cheryle
Newraan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS. NEWMAN: And I'm not speaking to you today as the co-chairman
of the Beautification Committee, but I wish to speak to you today as
just a taxpayer in Golden Gate and first, I'd like to express my
gratitude for the board and their staff for placing this on the agenda
today.
We do feel it is -- it's an essential to be recognized today and
approved, to be included as part of the all encompassing Streetscape
Master Plan.
The Golden Gate Plan in no way intends to replace, but only to
enhance one step further the Streetscape Master Plan, for areas that
were not originally included in the Streetscape Plan, the Golden Gate
community itself.
I'm fully confident that today upon leaving the chambers with the
hard work that the Committee has done over the past couple of years to
bring this plan before you, we will be rewarded for that hard work
today.
By approving this document the board and its staff sends a
message to the residents of Golden Gate, that Collier County supports
them in their efforts to build pride in its community and will assist
in their goals for the future. Thank you very much for allowing me to
speak today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: And Mr. Wilt.
MR. WILT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name's Glenn Wilt. I live in Golden Gate, and again, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you people this morning and I want to thank
you for placing it on the agenda.
The committee has done a lot of hard work out there in the
Beautification Committee. I'm encouraged by your comments that I
heard so far this morning, in regards to support of the plan. The
people worked hard out there, they've taxed themselves, we've taxed
ourselves, I'm part of it.
I just want to emphasize a couple of things if I could. I heard
the comment about the landscaping and when the widening takes place of
highways, when we take care of the landscaping.
I believe that when the Golden Gate Parkway was widened and
expanded that's when the landscaping got into full bore and, again, I
would like to emphasize that it concerns me that the one mile of the
urban area that goes into the Estates on Golden Gate Boulevard is not
considered for landscaping, even though the Boulevard is being widened
out.
I realize that's a total different subject, but I just wanted to
throw that item in also, while I'm here.
I would ask for your support and approval of the plan. We need
your help and, again, the resolution that it be included as part of
the Naples Streetscape or whatever the name is on the Master Plan for
Collier County, so it can be put in there as resolution that the
people in Golden Gate would like to have some say in what's happening
for the landscaping within our own area.
The issue, as far as the maintenance, I think can be addressed --
that subject down the line.
Again, I thank you for your time and appreciate your support and
hope you'll give a favorable consideration.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Wilt. I do have one question,
the median -- oh, not for you, Mr. Wilt, I'm sorry. The median on
Golden Gate Parkway is a lot more lush than say, Pine Ridge, and if
they're doing that for 50,000 a lane mile, can we hire them to do Pine
Ridge? Because Pine Ridge stinks, that whole section stinks, and I'd
like to get the opportunity to say stinks a few more times in there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What do you really think?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do I really think about that.
Okay. Why don't we go ahead and try to bring this to closure and
get some --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion we approve staff's recommendation including the feasibility.
Do we have a time frame on the feasibility study, where we can,
for the boulevard, where we can actually expect to see something back?
MR. BOBANICK: I would think that we could probably have that
back in a month.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Including that feasibility
study.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask the motion maker to include the --
one of the reasons for the motion indicating that this is in fact a
major arterial and therefore consistent with the balance of roadway
landscaping in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please consider the motion amended to
reflect that.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion to second amends. Is there any
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a question, are we committing new
funds for this action at this point?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the Parkway, yes. For the other
we're moving it into the Naplescape Plan, but, obviously, no
commitment there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're committing maintenance dollars.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is $109,400.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that, but we're committing
that with this action today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How does this interrelate then to the
budget discussions that were mentioned during the earlier discussion
of this item?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In other words, was the $109,400 anticipated
in the upcoming budget or is it a new expenditure?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's not what I meant. I heard
discussions saying that we would look at these funds during our budget
discussion and decide whether to do it not, but we're preempting that
ability here with this motion today.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the discussion Commissioner
Hancock and I had on that wasn't whether to do anything or not. It
was if this amount proved to be higher, you had expressed a concern as
to the lushness of this particular beautification and whether the
maintenance was higher than in other locations.
We've been indicated by staff right now, it's not, but we can
look at that year by year and obviously if it's more expensive, we can
adjust as necessary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just say, we can go through the
staff recommendation on the new staff report, it really does clarify
things. That we're approving the Golden Gate Beautification Master
Plan and including it in the Collier Streetscape and we're approving
and accepting the annual cost for maintenance of the parkway medians,
which is $109,400.
We're approving the 50/50 partnership for funding, but that's
where we'll look at that annually in the budget -- I'm asking if I'm
understanding this correctly, and then we're asking the staff to look
at whether or not Golden Gate Boulevard should be incorporated into --
into what -- into the --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Construction.
MR. BOBANICK: Construction of the four-lane project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'kie, I think you hit on the
point that Commissioner Norris was saying and that is that we haven't
decided the maintenance budget for the rest of the county and by
today's action if we're locking in at $109,400 today, we have kind of
done that outside of the normal budget process for maintenance.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe up to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, yeah, I don't think we're precluded from
changing that dollar amount in the budget process, but we're saying we
will accept a maintenance -- the maintenance for that and this is a,
if you will, a bench mark or balipark figure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct.
MR. BOBANICK: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we're not committing specifically to
the dollars today, we're just saying we'll accept maintenance and if
this year we decide to drop the maintenance dollars this will be
affected, as will everything else.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was my question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can do it for a 102,000, then
great.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Or if we decide not to do it at all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Meaning any maintenance on anything. Just let
it all die?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's not a specific committal of the
dollars, but a committal of responsibility. Am I --
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. For point of clarification on the
recommendation and, perhaps, Mr. Bobanick can help us. Subpart one
talks about approving a resolution and I wanted to check if that
resolution is a resolution which number should be reserved in today's
agenda item to accomplish subpart one recommendation and the same with
subpart three, which references preparing a resolution and then
amending ordinances. Is that a resolution that is to be number
reserved today, prepared by staff so that it can become a part of the
record of this agenda item or do you have something else in mind?
MR. FABIANO: We have prepared a resolution, but it has no
designation for a specific number at this time or request. I don't
know if that's necessary at this time or not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was the resolution included in our package?
MR. FABIANO: No, it wasn't. We were just asking for you to have
us prepare it and we have prepared one just in case it was ready to be
accepted.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, is the idea for the resolutions, either one of
these, under subpart one and three to be adopted today in the spirit
with the recommendation that the board may approve or that they come
back as a separate agenda item for a review and approval?
MR. FABIANO: It would come back as a separate agenda item with
that resolution for their approval at that time. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees.
MR. MCNEES: Regarding the budget issue, I think what staff will
do with your action today is place these expenditures in your fiscal
'98 budget. You will certainly see them then when they come to you
this summer, next to all of your other fiscal '98 expenditures and
have an opportunity to discuss them at that point. I don't think we
have an ability to fix a fiscal '98 appropriation today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that gets to the heart of what
Commissioner Norris was asking is this inclusion, it now becomes
viewed the same as every other maintenance project in the county. It
doesn't set it aside saying we're committing to this maintenance and
this maintenance alone, and everything else is subject to change.
MR. MCNEES: Yes, and we frankly appreciate your sensitivity to
the maintenance cost issue. It's something that, you know, we've
approved these projects over the years and we have for the first time
this year, grouped all of the landscape maintenance on one budget
where you're going to see it all on one page, and it's getting to be
substantial dollars. There's no question about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's expected.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So this motion is subject to final budget
approval?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As are all landscape maintenance projects.
MR. HULHERE: Mr. Chairman, sorry, I just want to give
clarification on one point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name, please.
MR. HULHERE: Bob Hulhere, Current Planning Manager. A little
bit later on in the agenda we'll be discussing the Streetscape Master
Plan. I just wanted to find out if you prefer to hold off to discuss,
it's the timing that concerns me. I do not believe we will be able to
amend the Streetscape Master Plan before the 4th of June, when it may
or may not be included in this LDC amendment cycle, and that
discussion may be better off to take place --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This action we're taking specifically affects
the maintenance issue on Golden Gate Parkway, and indicates a
direction regarding Golden Gate Boulevard for future inclusion. MR. HULHERE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I don't think that timing is as critical.
Would you agree, Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as it's amended in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, as long as the direction is to amend it
for inclusion at the first available cycle I think we're accomplishing
that objective.
Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there further
discussion on the motion? Is there anything about this we haven't
talked about?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Seeing none, thank you very much.
Item #BE1
RESOLUTION 97-255 AND LEASE AGREEHENT BEWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND PRIHECO
PERSONAL COHMUNICATIONS - ADOPTED
We will move on to, hopefully, the next and slightly quicker item
under 8(E)(1), recommendation the BCC execute and complete a lease
agreement, a short form lease agreement between Collier County and
PrimeCo Personal Communications. Who do we have on this one? Ms.
Herritt, is this your lucky morning.
MS. HERRITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning.
MS. HERRITT: Good morning. Jean Herritt, Office of Franchise
Administration. Our office is here to recommend that you approve and
execute a lease agreement between Collier County and PrimeCo Personal
Communications.
The company proposes to erect a tower 125 foot monopole which
will support operations for a new form of cellular type
telecommunications called Personal Communication Services, PCS.
The company has requested 1,000 square feet of vacant county
owned property within Vineyards Community Park. This property is not
suitable for other use and, at the same time, a tower would not
interfere with park activities. Because PCS uses a digitized format
in combination with fiberoptics, it is expected that the capacity to
accommodate users will be vastly increased and potentially will lower
rates users pay for mobile phone service.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that local
governments cannot unreasonably discriminate between different
technologies or different methods of delivery of services. Even
zoning laws and regulations must not have the effect of preventing or
banning the provision of a wireless service. In order to minimize the
intrusion of PCS towers in residential areas, we have offered a lease
to PrimeCo with the intention of limiting the impact on the community,
along with developing a significant source of revenue.
In addition, we can be a catalyst to aid collocation and
consolidation for facilities for companies needing tower space to
deliver their services. Our office has served as a point for
multilateral coordination. We have served as the point of contact and
facilitator.
Planning services has determined that the placement in the park
is allowable and in concert with the county attorney's office, real
property, and our office, the lease has been developed and negotiated.
The lease is for 15 years with an option to renew for five years.
The lease dictates a yearly rent of $14,000 with a 20 percent increase
every five years. The life of the lease would amount to 200 -- almost
$255,000.
In addition, there are collocation provisions, as well as an
allowance for county placement of facilities on the tower.
Provisions for deposits, insurance, indemnification, and other
provisions for adequate protection of the county are contained in the
proposed lease.
At this time, I'd like to introduce Mark Ciarfella of PrimeCo
Personal Communications and after his short remarks, staff will be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one before his. It says in the
packet that a picture of the tower is attached to the lease; it wasn't
in my packet. I need to know where it's going in the park and what
it's going to look like.
MS. MERRITT: Mr. Ciarfella is going to show you that.
MR. CIARFELLA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
My name is Mark Ciarfella and I work with PrimeCo and at this time
I'll certainly pass out some pictures for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so you can tail your remarks, sir. Ms.
Merritt, I think there's an obvious benefit to the county here, and I
appreciate you bringing this forward, but there are some compatibility
questions here that I think we're gonna -- we're gonna have to
address.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a picture of it in the park?
MR. CIARFELLA: No, ma'am. That is a picture of a similar
installed pole on the east coast of Florida that PrimeCo has installed
in a park.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does anyone have a site plan of where on
the park property this is supposed to go? I'm gonna want to see that.
I'm sure everybody is.
MR. CIARFELLA: Commissioner, I do have one right here, if you'd
like to take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Merritt, how high are the ball field
lights at that park; do we know?
MS. MERRITT: About 85 feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead, sir.
MR. CIARFELLA: Again, my name is Mark Ciarfella with PrimeCo.
PrimeCo is a partnership of four baby bells that were formed in 1994
to bid on a license from the FCC. The four baby bells that you may be
very familiar with consist of U.S. West, Air Touch, Bell Atlantic, and
Nynex. All major players in the telecommunications business and all
operate wireline and cellular phone companies within their respective
regions of the United States.
PrimeCo was formed, as I said, in 1994, to compete with the
incumbent cellular providers here in Collier County. PrimeCo has
launched its network in three regions of this state and we have an own
and operate license for the entire state. We are right now in the
process of expanding our business into Southwest Florida.
We have executed leases with other communities here in Southwest
Florida that include the City of Cape Coral and Lee County and also
have executed many leases on the east coast and other regions of the
state.
We are here today to indicate that this is an important site for
PrimeCo, it will cover the 1-75 corridor within the community and that
is very important, of course, to a cellular provider.
We do respectively request your approval and consideration of the
lease and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand -- I heard Ms. Herritt mention a
reduction in rates for cellular users. How does PrimeCo -- we have
Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet, those are two local providers. What's
PrimeCo in their operation?
MR. CIARFELLA: Well, PrimeCo is a separate company all together.
In fact, what we will do is we will compete directly with Cellular One
and GTE Mobilnet.
We've launched our network in the east coast of Florida, which
includes Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Orlando, Tampa, and
Jacksonville, and what we've seen is a substantial decrease in the
rate structure of the incumbent providers. Certainly we come into the
market and we provide what we believe to be a better service, and a
much cheaper service at that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I couldn't tell from that site plan where
on the park property it's gonna be located or it's proposed to be
located.
MR. FITZEK: For the record, James Fitzek, Office of Franchise
Administration. It will be located in the northwest corner of that
park along the easement line of 75. The one ball field that sits with
home plate right in the northwest corner. The location of the tower
will be down the right field line, where the present outfield pole is
right now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's about 40 feet higher than the
light poles.
MR. FITZEK: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But it's the furthest point from residences on
that property we could find.
MR. FITZEK: Yes, sir. The closest property is a quarter of a
mile away.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Nobody likes towers, but, I mean, that's
probably --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not particularly ugly.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: A quarter of a mile away?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we know about field of view from, I
think there are, what, some condos being constructed on the other side
of Vineyards Boulevard or is that Vineyards Boulevard? I'm just
curious about what the line of sight is to that; do we know?
MR. CIARFELLA: Well, I don't know specifically, no, but sort of
what our philosophy is when we come into the marketplace, we try to
identify structures that are already existing in the community to take
advantage of it.
Certainly what we found when we've done these types of
installations in the past, because there already is currently a
lighted ball field there, that the impact to surrounding areas is
quite minimal with just an extension of about a 40 foot height, so we
try to be sensitive to the surrounding community as much as we can.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there questions of staff or the petitioner
on this?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One more.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Hac'kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was just trying to get somebody to do
the math for me. We're gonna make how much money off of this? 20
percent of the rental amount --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Herritt had that total amount
over the lease period.
MS. HERRITT: The total amount over the lease period, the lease
is for 15 years with an option to renew for five years and at that
time we could renegotiate the price, but over the life of the lease
it's $254,800. In addition, the company is also giving a onetime
contribution of $10,000 to be used in the park.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we have a space allocated on the pole for
the county's use should we deem it necessary. MS. HERRITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I do have a question. I just want to
make sure I get the location right. Actually, this would be close to
1-75, correct?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. CIARFELLA: It's immediately adjacent to 1-75, yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I question your quarter of a mile residence
because there's one right across the road, Vanderbilt Beach Road,
there is a property located right across the street from that. These
are lighted, obviously.
MR. CIARFELLA: No, ma'am. There will not be a light on the top
of this facility. There are ball field lights attached to it, but
there will not be lights on the top of the facility. The FAA would
not require it at this location.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Really?
MR. CIARFELLA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Planes aren't supposed to fly that low anyway.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I know I'm just surprised.
MR. FITZEK: I'd like to point out one thing too, if you look at
the existing 75 lights there, this tower is very close to the same
height as the existing 75 lights.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One more question is, have you guys tested
the market? I mean, is this the most the market will bear in getting
a fair deal?
MR. FITZEK: There was advertised for two weeks through our real
properties lease procedures and we have the affidavit that it was
advertised in. No other bids were received.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question is compared to -- what are
they paying in Hiami?
MS. HERRITT: I don't know, but I know we negotiated a much
better lease than Lee County did.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And besides, we don't want to be like Miami.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I want to make as much money as
Miami makes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me do this. I think it's never popular to
approve tower sites period, throughout the community, because there's
no way you can say, "Gee, isn't that a beautiful tower," but this is
probably one of the least intrusive presentations we're gonna see, and
if I'm not mistaken under a hundred feet, it wouldn't even have to be
here in front of us, other than just a lease approval. We wouldn't
even be talking about height. I think you're allowed up to a hundred
feet without county approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we doing a variance at the same time?
MR. FITZEK: There are provisions, I don't know the exact height,
but a hundred feet is close.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Will this require -- is this going to
require a variance or something, in addition?
MR. FITZEK: No, it is not. It's an allowable use under, I
believe the PUD, the Vineyards, all falls under --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Including the height.
MR. FITZEK: Yes, ma'am, 185.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have further questions of staff on this
matter? Do we have any speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion to second. Any further discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries five to zero.
MR. CIARFELLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Be looking for those rates to drop, what about
next week?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't wait.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-256 APPOINTING CHARLES MCHAHON TO THE GOLDEN GATE
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go on to our next item which is under
10(A), appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification
Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there's one vacancy, one
applicant. I suggest we appoint Mr. Charles HcHahon. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10B
COHMUNITY TRANSPORTATION - DISCUSSED
Seeing none, we're to item 10(B), add on community
transportation. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wanted to bring this up. I had
sent each of you a copy of something from the St. Vincent De Paul
folks, who were having trouble with community transportation.
You may remember last year we had Special Olympics and we had
difficulty with community transportation. Collier County Association
for the Blind had difficulty with community transportation. I've had
several individual incidents, people whose elderly parents need to use
the service or whatever.
I just wanted to let you know right now the transportation
disadvantage board has issued an RFP and we're looking at alternatives
for that. I think TECH does a heck of a job with kids. From the
reviews we've gotten from the users, there's some question as to how
effective they've done, as far as running community transportation.
You may often see large buses with --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nobody on it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- no one on them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Almost as if we're running a public transit
system.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who owns the big buses, Tim, do you know?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's kind of an interesting way it's
set up. Community gets those -- the way the federal system is set up,
it rewards you for miles driven as opposed to for efficiency.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Human beings transported.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, so you may have a -- and
there's actually a formula, so the larger your vehicle, the more
you're rewarded and so you may have people who live five blocks away,
they'll go pick one up, drive them to their destination, drive back,
pick the other one up, 'cause they're racking up more miles and it's
just not --.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you saying that a federal program may
offer incentives for inefficiency?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hard to believe.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hard to imagine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My God.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But, anyway, the RFP is due back this
summer through the HPO, I think around August, right after our break,
so I know that's been a source of frustration for all of us, and just
so you know, it's in action right now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the meantime, many of us have constituents
that were from an area in the North that had a mass transit system,
but they are smaller tailored systems, and I have two of them,
Harperwoods in Michigan, and another one that someone pointed out to
me. I'm getting information piece by piece on them and they're these
small subscription services, they don't run the big buses, you know,
and they seem to operate very well. The rates are fairly affordable
and so forth. So as I get that information I'll disseminate it to all
of you. Maybe we can get an idea of how this is done elsewhere more
efficiently, so that we aren't driving blind when we're making a
decision on a vendor.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Inventing the wheel for a transportation
system, so to speak.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Exactly, and they do the same thing. They
have the priorities, they look at the true transportation
disadvantaged, as opposed to financially disadvantaged first, and then
if they still have room, they become a subscription service for the
general public. So its a nice mix of the two, but they're out there
and they're operating at probably a lot less federal and state dollars
than we're expending on this one.
So thank you, Commissioner Constantine, I appreciate you copying
the board on your work on that too. Any comments on that? Seeing
none, we're to public comments and general topics. Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: You have none registered.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are now to the afternoon portion of
our agenda at 10 o'clock in the morning.
Item #12A1
ORDINANCE 97-22 AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH HANAGEHENT PLAN FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY BY PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO
OBJECTIVE 2.1 OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR VERY
LOW, LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PURSUANT TO A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS -
ADOPTED
Under advertised public hearings, item 12 (A)(1) comp plan
amendments. This is an ordinance amending the Collier County Growth
Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County
providing amendment to Objective 2.1 of the housing element. Good
morning, Mr. Hihalic.
MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. Greg Hihalic, from
department of housing and urban improvement, and this ordinance
essentially quantifies the settlement that we came to with the
Department of Community Affairs over the definitions for very low,
low, and moderate income persons within the county. Basically, we've
been allowed to lower our definitions from the state average because
of our high median income. This will allow us to more focus our
efforts to lower income persons.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers on this, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No? I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
Seeing none, Mr. Hihalic, thank you.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 97-23 RE PETITION PUD-97-1, WILLIAM HOOVER REPRESENTING
CATHRYN EBOLI, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FROM "A/ST" RURAL AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS EBOLI PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), EAST OF APRIL CIRCLE PUD AND WEST OF
INTERSTATE 75 IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED
AS AMENDED
Item 12(B)(1) zoning amendments. Zoning PUD 97-1, Mr. Hoover
representing Cathryn Eboli, trustee, requesting a fezone
classification from A/ST rural to PUD planned unit development. Mr.
Hulhere, good morning.
MR. HULHERE: Good morning. Just wanted to briefly let the board
know that in keeping with your direction to attempt to provide better
audio, visual and graphic presentations, we had previously selected
this petition to do a little bit of a demonstration using power point.
We recognize you're not gonna want to see this on all petitions and it
has nothing to do particularly with this petition, other than it was
simply selected, so Susan is going to give a presentation utilizing
the power point, and I just wanted to let you know that we'll
selectivity choose petitions in the future to bring forward in this
fashion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Particular those that appear more onerous, I
would assume, and need the additional attention, and I'm sure you'll
get comments from our technology wizard Commissioner Hac'kie on this
One.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just thrilled we're getting into the
20th Century. It's almost over, but we're getting there.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that all presenters,
testifiers, be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. If I could ask all individuals
here to speak on this item, whether you be a member of the public or a
consultant, to please stand and raise your right hand. Madam court
reporter, would you please swear them in.
(Whereupon, all speakers on this issue were sworn.)
MS. MURRAY: Good morning. For the record, Susan Murray,
principal planner. All set. This is 97-1 Eboli PUD. I'm going to
give you a brief presentation outline. I'm gonna introduce the
project. I'm gonna assess the compatibility of the project with the
growth management plan. I'm gonna identify the issues, give you the
pros and cons of the project, planning commission recommendation and
the total time should be 15 minutes or less.
The subject site is located on the south side of Immokalee Road.
It's right here. It's between the intersection of 1-75 and Immokalee
Road and Airport Road and Immokalee Road. Just to the north we have
the Carlton Lakes PUD and immediately west we have the April Circle
PUD or Windsong apartments.
The subject site is 8.97 acres in area. It's currently
undeveloped. It has some native vegetation and a wet area on the
southern portion of the site. The site is located within overlapping
activity center density bands and those density bands surround the
intersections of Immokalee Road and Airport Road and 1-75 and
Immokalee Road.
The current zoning designation is agricultural and the future
land use designation is urban residential. The applicant is planning
or proposing to construct multi-family and two-family dwelling units
at a requested density of 8.92 dwelling units an acre for a total of
80 dwelling units. These will be one, two, and three bedrooms units.
One to two stories in height and they are proposed to surround two
lakes. There'll be a pool and clubhouse recreation facilities and a
natural preserve area on the southern 1/6th of the site. There'll be
accessories, such as carports and garages, and the applicant is
proposing to do a unified architectural development theme.
Consistency with the Growth Management Plan, specifically with
the future land use element. The site design minimizes residential
land uses adjacent to Immokalee Road, and that would include a 50 foot
setback from Immokalee Road.
Additionally, there is a proposed berm or berm wall combination
to be located along Immokalee Road, which will additionally buffer the
subject site from Immokalee Road.
The residential land uses on the site will be concentrated
towards the interior of the site. The proposed use is compatible in
use with the April Circle PUD, which is immediately -- that should be,
excuse me, west of the site and the 10 to 40 foot yard requirements
and the 35 foot height limit will provide open space and buffering
between the subject site and surrounding properties.
The preserve area to the south will buffer the subject site and
the southern parcel, and there will be a shared access easement which
is proposed between the subject and the eastern parcel to facilitate
access onto Immokalee Road and eliminate driveways.
As the applicants requested, density is based on the density
rating system found in the future land use element, which provides for
a base density of four dwelling units per acre.
Additionally, the applicant is eligible to request three
additional dwelling units per acre because the site is located within
activity center density bands and also an additional three dwelling
units per acre because the site qualifies and falls under the
definition of residential infill. This would allow a maximum density
of 10 dwelling units an acre.
I'd just like to remind the board and the audience that the
language in the LDC and Growth Management Plan allows these six
additional units at the discretion of the board and not as an
entitlement. In fact, Section 2.2.20.3.1.(3) of the LDC actually
allows the Board of County Commissioners to lessen the density when
the Board of County Commissioners determines that the maximum
permissible density is incompatible or inconsistent with surrounding
neighborhoods or areas and/or would conflict with the intent or
provisions of the Growth Management Plan.
Parcels less than 10 acres are eligible for additional density if
they qualify for infill development, if they meet the following
criteria: First, that they are not created to take advantage of the
infill density. Second, that there is no common site development plan
with adjoining properties. Third, that no common -- there is no
common ownership with adjacent parcels and lastly, that the project is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
The intent of the infill density bonus was to encourage
development of sites surrounded by developed or approved for developed
properties. It encourages the use of existing infrastructure and
discourages development into rural areas of the county.
This project is compatible with the intent of the Growth
Management Plan regarding infill density bonus on one major account
and that is that the site is surrounded on two sides to the north and
the west by properties which are approved for development.
However, there are properties south and east of the subject site
which are vacant and currently have an agricultural zoning district.
I'm sure you're all familiar with the Immokalee Road corridor
between 1-75 and Airport Road. There's quite a bit of development
activity going on in that area. It appears to be market driven
development activity. There does not appear to be a need for the
county to offer an incentive of an additional three dwelling units per
acre to get this property developed. The market is already there.
It's already a popular place.
With that in mind, I just did a brief comparison of some of the
surrounding projects that have been approved for development. I'd
like to point out that the April Circle PUD immediately adjacent to
the property was approved for low to moderate income housing density
bonus and they were permitted development at 12.8 dwelling units per
acre for a total of 120 units, and they are currently 100 percent
built out, but if you look at the other surrounding properties, you'll
see Carlton Lakes is only five -- currently five percent built out.
Huntington, 22 percent. Longshore Lakes, 54 percent, and then we have
Pelican Strand, which has not seen any development as of yet.
Section 2.2.20.2.5 of the LDC requires development within a PUD
to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and property. With
that, staff conducted an analyses, or actually two analysis. The
first concentrates on properties immediately abutting the subject
site.
If you look to the north, we have the Carlton Lakes PUD with an
approved density of 3.25 dwelling units per acre, a mixture of
single-family, multifamily, and seven acres of commercial use.
To the south we have an ag parcel. This acreage is approximate.
It's plus or minus, but it is currently allowed to be developed at one
dwelling unit per five acres.
To the east we have another ag parcel, a little less than 10
acres currently permitted to be developed at one dwelling unit per
five acres.
Then, again, the April Circle PUD, which is a bit of an anomaly
at 12.8 dwelling units per acre.
Just to give you an idea of where these projects are located.
This is the subject site. This is Immokalee Road, 1-75, Carlton
Lakes, Pelican Strand, I apologize for not being able to read this,
Longshore Lakes. So this essentially encompasses this whole portion
of Immokalee Road and that's what staff based their analysis on.
Then a little bit further, to give you an idea of the densities
of approved neighboring PUD's that I just pointed out, they range
from, on this slide, from 6.6 to 2.62 dwelling units an acre and then
with April -- with the exception, of course, of the April Circle PUD,
the other remaining two in the corridor are at 2.14 and 5.96. The
average density turned out to be 4.55 dwelling units an acre for all
of these projects within this corridor.
To give you staff's analysis pros of the proposed projects. The
rezoning from ag to PUD and multifamily development is consist with
the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan. The
multifamily residential land use is compatible with surrounding
residential land uses and the requested density is authorized in the
Growth Management Plan's density rating system.
The project will not degrade on Immokalee Road below the adopted
level of service. There are commercial and professional areas located
within reasonable distance to serve residents and water and sewer
service is available to the site.
The proposed setbacks are sufficient for buffers from the road
and neighboring properties and the proposed joint access with the
property to the east will eliminate driveways on to Immokalee Road.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing the architectural unification
of the structure's landscape and signage.
Cons of the proposed project. Staff feels that based on the
analysis I just presented to you, that the 8.92 dwelling units per
acre is inconsistent with the surrounding residential PUD's, which
average 4.55 dwelling units an acre with a high of 6.16 dwelling units
an acre with the exception of April Circle PUD. Additionally, the
additional three dwelling units per acre fails to meet the intent of
the residential infill. Current conditions in this area of the county
are -- lend itself to market driven development. Staff feels that
there is no incentive necessary through the infill provision that is
required to encourage development of this site.
At the planning commission meeting there was an original motion
to approve the petition as submitted by the petitioner at a requested
density of 8.92 dwellings units per acre. That motion failed to be
approved.
What was approved -- or excuse me, let me back up a step. The
descending commissioners voted against the proposal due to the
incompatibility of the density with the surrounding PUD's.
The second motion for approval passed with the following
stipulations, that is, the approved density shall be seven dwelling
units per acre, for a maximum build out of 63 dwelling units and the
berm wall combination along Immokalee Road should be limited to a
height of six feet above the berm with a maximum height of ten feet,
and that's it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry what was that last -- the
very last condition there, berm six feet.
MS. HURRAY: That the berm wall -- the wall should be no higher
than six feet and the berm wall combination should be no greater than
ten feet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of staff on the
petition?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I have one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Hac'kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In the average density in the area, your
slide said excluding April Circle PUD. Did the four something average
density include April Circle?
MS. HURRAY: Yes, it did.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the averages included April Circle, but
the six was the highest, excluding April Circle? MS. HURRAY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to make sure we understood.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we're seeing on this parcel is as we were
having discussions on the Growth Management Plan about allowing
commercial on acres of 10 and less. It's exactly what I knew was
gonna happen.
These 10 acres infill parcels, there's no value to them. At four
and five units an acre, they just simply won't be built, and that may
not be a bad thing, but this is just exactly what's going to happen,
unless we give more flexibility in the areas for things other than
high density residential. It's not to say this is a bad project or a
good project, but this is to be expected on these pieces.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I -- yeah, I think it's unrealistic,
though, to look at it with one eye closed to April Circle. I mean it
is adjacent to April Circle, which is 12.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree and I'm just repeating I think
what you just asked, but including April Circle the average density in
the area is 4.55.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's correct.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even including that, it's low.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even including that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I think you do have to look at, and we'll
let the petitioner make their comments, though, is that this a
transitional piece. It has immediately adjacent to it 12 units.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if the average is 4, and it's got 12 next
to it. Somewhere between the two lies -- lies what I'll call
transitional zoning. It's just up to us to determine what is a
comfortable level of transitional zoning, I guess. Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, with the law
firm of Roetzel & Andtess, representing the petitioner, John Eboli.
Basically, I don't want to recap everything staff's said but the
project is an 80 unit market rate apartment complex located on nine
acres of land or approximately nine acres of land. It's between
Immokalee Road and Airport Road. You'll have to give us a few
seconds, we're not as technologically advanced as staff on this one,
so -- can you see the architectural rendering? We thought there was
an easel, but it's not here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's one in our packet, I believe.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, the project's located on Immokalee Road
between 1-75 and Airport Road. The project will look like the
architectural rendering in the front of your packet, which will be
incorporated into the PUD application and it will be substituted for
the existing Exhibit C.
As you can see, the project will have tile roofs, carports for
each unit, a pool, a clubhouse, basketball courts, two tot lots.
A unique aspect of this project is that it will be owner
operated. John Eboli will live at the site and will manage it. In
your packet, which I think is Exhibits D and E, should be pictures of
potential betms. I'm sorry, Commissioner, it's the one with the same
-- with the architectural rendering -- pictures of berms that we
propose and that will depend on whether or not when we dig the lakes,
we find sufficient rock to build the rock berm, which will be very
similar to berm across the street at Carlton Lakes.
We have also agreed to increase the setback from 50 feet along
Immokalee Road to 90 feet.
As staff pointed out, the project is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, which allows up to 10 units per acre. We used --
we only asked for nine units per acre, because that's what we needed
to make the project go.
Additionally, this will be, other than the apartment complex,
which is right next to us, which happens to be an affordable housing
project, the only market rate apartment complex in the area. So I
don't think the comparison of an apartment complex with existing
condominiums is exactly on point.
From a compatibility standpoint, the project will not impact
Immokalee Road. It's operating at a level of service A. In your
packet is also a copy of this compatibility map. As you'll note,
immediately west to our project is a 12.8 unit apartment complex.
John's project is vacant and next to it is also vacant, which
would be eligible for up to 10 units per acre. The project -- the
site next to that is also eligible for up to 10 units per acre or a
commercial infill under the current comp plan and then you have
commercial property here, in the whole corridor, I mean this whole
interchange activity center is commercial uses. Directly across the
property is another commercial use and the Carlton Lakes PUD, which
the multifamily portion which fronts on Immokalee Road is developing
at 6.26 acres.
So from a compatibility standpoint, the project is compatible
with the current and projected future uses in the area.
One other point of -- that I would like to point out is staff is
comparing PUD's that have hundreds of acres in them to a 9 acre parcel
and I -- we don't think that comparison makes sense from a planning
perspective to say that a nine acre parcel should develop at the same
intensity of use as a 200 acre parcel, which many times has golf
courses and other like type amenities.
We belief the project would be an excellent transition from a
roughly 13 unit per acre project down to slightly less than 9 and then
to whatever the commission thought would be compatible adjacent to it
on the vacant parcel.
I want to point out that at the planning commission the first
vote was a deadlock vote of three votes to three votes, so it was a
tie vote. The second vote passed four to two, so it was not unanimous
to cut back the density.
The project, as I mentioned earlier, we came in and we asked for
80 units because that's what we needed. We didn't come in and ask for
90 because that's what the comp plan would have allowed. We came in
with what we really needed to make it work, and the only reason the
project works at this high a level, an upscale development is because
John's family, frankly, has owned the property for 20 years and has
not factored in the cost of land in making a return on his investment.
He also would be living there along with his wife and basically
paying himself a salary, which by no means is an exorbitant salary, to
make the project work. Basically, it's a long term investment for
John down the road and John will explain that in greater detail.
In conclusion, the project will be a high quality market rate
apartment complex. We're asking for the minimum density we need for
the project to work at that level. It's less than is authorized under
the Growth Management Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
There has been no opposition to the project from any surrounding
neighborhoods and it's less, as far as, if you compare apartment
complexes around Collier County, it is on the very low end of
requested density. Most of the projects are 11 or 12 acres for market
driven apartment complexes.
John is here to answer any questions you may have of him. Bill
Hoover, the planner for the project, is also here to discuss any
particulars you have on the site plan or the project and if you have
any questions of me, I'm happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of the petitioner? Did you
say that Mr. Eboli will be living on the property and will manage the
property, so this is not a spec sale? You're not going to get your
zoning and run out and sell the property to some, you know, other
developer who's going to come in and build it.
MR. EBOLI: That is correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have that as a commitment from you on the
record as a basis for zoning?
MR. EBOLI: You absolutely do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, your name for the record.
MR. EBOLI: John Eboli.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Too many times we've done projects that are
above base density to see somebody spec them out and that's not -- I
don't have any interest in doing that. Are there any other questions
of Mr. Eboli?
Yes, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The architectural rendering that you have
here, sir, is that -- are you committing on the record that that's
what it will look like.
MR. EBOLI: I absolutely am, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition to what has been enclosed in our
package as landscaping along Immokalee Road as not exact, but as
concepts that you are going to incorporate into the project, are you
again willing to commit to the exhibits in this package as an element
of your zoning?
MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover. I did commit to that
in the PUD document, that the berm wall or berm would be very similar
to one of those four in Exhibits D and E.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the
petitioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just for the record, we would like to submit
these as changes to the previously submitted PUD document, so they
would be incorporated into the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Has our staff had an opportunity to see
this before this moment?
MS. HURRAY: No, they haven't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry, I think they were dropped off on
Friday. Do you need another set?
MS. HURRAY: I didn't get the original set.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They were closed on Monday in observance
of Memorial Day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What changes are we talking about in this PUD
that differ from what's in our packet?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically, the units will be decreased slightly
in size from 700 units per -- I mean 700 square feet for a one bedroom
to 665. Basically, the unit size has been scaled back just a little
bit, but are still larger than the existing apartment complexes and
other than the graphics, those are the only changes, I believe, we
would make, except for increasing the setback to 90 foot and also
committing to tile roofs, those are really the only changes that we've
made, which I had previously talked to staff about.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We see it in writing.
Any other questions for the petitioner?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you say 665 square feet?
MR. YOVANOVICH: For a one bedroom with a hundred foot square
foot -- that's not including the hundred foot lanai. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lanai.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Which a lot of apartment complexes like to say
is part of the unit. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm trying to remember, when I first moved
here I lived in Summerwind Apartments and I had a one bedroom there.
I'm trying to remember how small that was.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Smaller. I'm willing to bet you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean it was big enough for me but, you
know --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just trying to visualize 30 x
22.
MR. EBOLI: I think memory on the Summerwind one bedrooms,
Commissioner, is that they're roughly 642 to 652 square feet for some
of their one bedrooms.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That wasn't bad.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think this is as good an example of
transitional next door to an affordable housing project that we're
gonna see, and I particularly appreciate the commitments with visuals.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One of the reasons I understand the board had
a problem with April Circle is that it sets a trend on that that all
of a sudden you're going to see the density bump up around it, even
though April Circle did not turn out to the board's desire at that
time. I think something like this is to be expected.
A distinction was made on the rental issue. If these were
ownership condominiums, I would have a little more heartburn about the
density, but we, you know, we don't have that many on this particular
stretch of road.
Two things -- I think a couple of things -- do we have speakers
on this Mr. HcNees?
MR. HCNEES: None other than the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. A couple of things I think need to be
stated, so that, again, we're not continuing a trend.
One is we have an activity center a very short distance away.
This property in transitional zoning would indicate then a property to
the east would be of a lesser density, if it were to be developed
residentially. That's the idea of transitional zoning, is to reduce
as you move away from a high point, which at this is April Circle.
With the landscaping and the physical aspects that have been
proposed on the project, I'm comfortable that aesthetically it meets
the character and quality of what we're looking for. I would love to
see the density closer to seven units an acre, but looking at the -- I
don't know if you-all had a chance to see it pro forma but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The math doesn't work.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It doesn't work and I don't have any real
problem with the project.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Is that your main concern, I mean about
the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only concern I really have is density.
Everything else about the project is a pattern that is consistent with
the higher quality, even condominiums, we have in here. So the only
question is density and the fact that it's that close to an activity
center, generally you're not gonna have multifamily projects less than
six units an acre anyway, and that's usually condominium, not rental.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm concerned with the density to be honest
with you, but I also understand the numbers side of it, that this is a
problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, it is and I don't know what success we
would have with 12 and a half units an acre next to it, looking at six
or seven units an acre on this parcel.
Again, I think you have to transition a little bit in your
residential zoning.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they're gonna have to make an awfully
pretty project in order to overcome the handicap of being next door to
an affordable housing project and I think that they're doing exactly
that, and frankly their numbers only work because they're not
factoring in the land cost.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I guess what I'm thinking about too though
is, Pam, is what's across the street from them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At Carlton Lakes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is, at the street -- which is on the
street is, what, seven?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 6.26 --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, six.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for multifamily.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: See, that's where I kind of got a little bit
of a concern, but I feel we're a little bit inconsistent here, granted
right next door is April Circle at the 12, but I'm looking also at
what's across the street.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, for me that works perfectly, because
we got 12 and we got 6 and we're going to 9, and we're telling the
neighbors and the next strip that it's gonna be less than 9.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the overall number at Carlton
Lakes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, it's low, Carlton overall.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 3 point something.
MS. HURRAY: 3.25.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, they had that huge wetland that took a
chunk out of their property.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm told a single-family is more than a half
mile back from where we are, and the project, frankly, is gonna be as
nice looking as any other condominium project along the road. We just
couldn't make a condominium project go.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For those of you that are having problems with
the density and I mean, I do, too. I'd love to see this at four units
an acre, but to be realistic, these small parcels are exactly where
we're heading unless we start other development opportunities for 10
acre parcels.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because it just -- I don't know. I think you
run the risk of diminishing the use of the land to a point that we're
gonna spend a lot of tax money on lawsuits.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, frankly, I want to see this next to
April Circle. I want to see something this pretty next to April
Circle to begin that transition to the rest of the community.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there further questions of the
petitioner?
Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff -- no, I'm sorry,
motion to approve the petition as applied. MR. YOVANOVICH: With the amendments.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With the amendments submitted today, of
course.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the stipulations on the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Stipulations on the record and the only change
in what's being presented to us in the new document from planning
commission document is the density or the total number of units.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, say that again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm trying to clarify. You said as presented.
I just want to be very specific about that. You're talking about the
document we were presented today is what --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is exactly what I'm suggesting we approve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With the stipulations of what was entered into
the record today?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: If there is any comment from the board members in
regard to any materials or discussions they may have had prior to
their deliberations today, I'd appreciate if you make that for the
record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, and I'll start it off. I met with
the petitioner about a week ago, where I was presented some of this
information we received today, and I'm basing my decision solely on
the information received today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I did the same. I had met with the
petitioner, but I'm basing my vote on what I hear today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As required by --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Come on, Tim, give us a ditto.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The public hearing is closed. We have
a motion on the floor. Is there a second to the motion?
I'll second the motion to bring it up for a vote.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Seeing none, motion carries five to zero.
MR. EBOLI: I'd like to thank you, Commissioners, for your time
and consideration. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We thank you.
Let's go ahead and take about a five minute break and be back
promptly.
(Whereupon, a break was had from 10:30 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. We're gonna reconvene this
morning's meeting of the board.
Item #12B2
PETITION PUD-92-9(1), AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING
J. D. NICEWONDER REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE IHMOKALEE ROAD CENTER
PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING A USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR A FIRE
PREVENTION TRAINING AND FIRE/PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD IHMEDIATELY EAST OF SAM'S
CLUB WAREHOUSE - DENIED
We are to item 12(B)(2), petition PUD 92-9(1), Agnoli, Barber and
Brundage representing J.D. Nicewonder requesting an amendment to the
Immokalee Road Center PUD.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to take
this off the table.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to de-table, un-table,
un-table the item. Motion to second. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
Seeing none, to bring everyone back up to speed, at the time this
was tabled at our last meeting, it was discussed that when this comes
back we would more or less pick up where we left off. We're not gonna
have an absolute rehearing of the item in its entirety. We are not
going to entertain issues outside the perusal of this board.
So let me set the frame for everyone here who is registered to
speak for or against this. This is not about the fire department.
This is not about what taxes you pay them. This is about a land use
decision that this board is being asked to make today and it's about
the compatibility issues of that land use decision. All testimony
today has to be in reference to either new information or pertaining
to the testimony previously given.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wasn't there a motion to approve on the
floor with a second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's second on the floor to approve, so
what I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who made those?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do not remember who the motions were made
by. I do know that they stand, unless whoever made it decides to
withdraw it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think I made the motion. I thought you
seconded.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I believe the second was Commissioner
Constantine. That's my -- okay, you want to check on that. What I'd
like is, Mr. Nino, have there been to your knowledge any material
changes in the information presented to this board?
MR. NINO: No, there have not. Ron Nino, for the record. No
there have not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you feel there is any information that you
need to expand upon to the board?
MR. NINO: There is nothing more I need to enter into the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Anyone testifying today should also be sworn in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Again, all members of the public or
petitioners on this matter, if you're here to speak on this item,
would you please stand and raise your right hand. That means if
you've registered to speak please stand and raise your right hand.
Madam court reporter, would you please swear them in.
(Whereupon, all speakers on this issue were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you very much. Why don't we go
ahead and go to the petitioner on any additional items that have not
been presented or new information, and then we'll go to public
speakers. Is the petitioner here?
MR. FARRAR: Morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Brian
Farrat with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. I have no real additional
information, just would like to make a brief statement.
It is our firm belief that this additional use is compatible in
nature and is less of an impact to the surrounding community than some
of the permitted uses which included the commercial shopping center,
department stores, or eating and drinking establishments.
We would also like to note that this land use does not carry with
it any other approvals that would ultimately control what would be
built on this property. Permitting through Collier County Development
Services and the Florida -- South Florida Water Management District is
required and will be looked into for construction. With this in mind,
we're requesting that this be approved. That's my brief statement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, and I was just reminded that
procedurally, the public hearing was closed because it went to a
motion. I, therefore, will reopen public hearing, so that we can go
to public speakers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For the limited purposes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the limited purposes of what has been
stated already. Again, we are confined to elements regarding
compatibility or testimony previously given on this matter.
Mr. HcNees?
MR. MCNEES: Chief James Tobin, who will be followed by Edward
Haguire.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Chief Tobin.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did we get the information on the motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I made the motion and you seconded the
motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close.
MR. TOBIN: Good morning, Commissioners. James Tobin, Fire
Chief, North Naples Fire and Rescue Control District. Very quickly I
just want to say thank you for all your considerations. I might want
to just pass up to you a photo of the property to actually show you
how far away it is from different types of neighborhoods or people and
exactly where it sits and I think you may find that useful.
In accordance to what you asked us to do before, you know, we
continued to try to do what's right and just want to say thank you for
your consideration this morning.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Maguire, who will be followed by Mr. John
Cardillo.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: While Mr. Maguire's coming up, I do want to
indicate that I had met with both members of the public and petitioner
on this matter in the time since the last hearing and will base my
decision on the information presented here today and that already in
the record from our previous hearings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So have I met, significant amounts of
time, frankly, with both sides, but I'll base my decision on today's
information and the previous hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I have the same disclaimer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I don't think I have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I share the disclaimer with the other
three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Maguire.
MR. MAGUIRE: Thank you. For the record, I'm Ed Maguire and I am
chairman of the North Naples Fire, Rescue, and Control District, Board
of Fire Commissioners. I just want to go on record today that the
commissioners and North Naples have recognized the importance of not
only the fire station location, where we've selected, but also the
need for the training facility and as such, we have a unanimous vote
from the commissioners to support going forward with this project, and
I thank you, again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Maguire.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Cardillo, who will be --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Waived.
MR. MCNEES: -- followed by Janet Vasey.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Physically and figuratively. Ms. Vasey?
Folks, listen up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who's next after her?
MR. MCNEES: Ms. Vasey will be followed by Emil Tomkovich.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't make me take out the whip.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't want to see that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Get things cracking around here. That's what
happens when I don't eat breakfast
MS. VASEY: Good morning, my name's Janet Vasey, for the record.
I'm speaking for the Greater Naples Civic Association in bringing to
your attention a misrepresentation that occurred at the March 13,
1997, Board of County Commissioner Meeting on this agenda item.
References were made under oath to a contract that had a 60 to 90
day window. This is the reason the petition was moved from May 27th
to May 13th. However, there is no contract. The document that was
referred to as a contract is a memorandum of understanding. You have
a copy of it in front of you, that top sheet.
This MOU is not a contract, rather it's an agreement on
conditions to be set in a later contract and it includes the
statement, North Naples Fire District will present this agreement for
approval to the fire commissioners at the March 13th meeting. Upon
approval of the MOU, closing was to be within 60 to 90 days. The
latest closing date, 90 days from the plan approval date of March
13th, is June 10th. It is not June 1st, as represented by the North
Naples Fire District.
Also, the MOU was never approved by the fire commissioners. It
was not even presented for approval at the March 13th Fire Commission
Meeting. You have an excerpt of the minutes of that meeting in front
you, the second page. At this meeting, the fire commissioners gave
conceptual approval to generalities. The MOU was not mentioned at the
meeting and essential facts of the MOU were not presented, such as the
price of the property is actually 1.5 million dollars and in October,
1997, Mr. Nicewonder will make a donation of $150,000 in stocks to the
North Naples Fire District.
In the minutes of the March 13th meeting of the Board of Fire
Commissioners it states and I quote, "Commissioner Messer made a
motion to go ahead and pursue establishing the purchase and sales
agreement for this piece of property, bring it to the next meeting.
He likes the concept."
The MOU was not presented at the April or May Fire Commission
Meetings, so no contract exists and there was no reason to advance the
date for the amendment to the PUD.
Additionally, there were some misleading statements made at the
BCC May 13th meeting. You were told that there was not -- there was
quote, "not one single negative phone call," end of quote, received
regarding the new facility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who are you quoting there?
MS. VASEY: That was Commissioner -- I mean, that was Chief
Tobin.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. VASEY: End of quote after call. "There was not one single
negative phone call," end of quote, received regarding the new
facility, leaving the impression that no one has objected to the
facility. However, there were eight North Naples residents at the May
10th Fire Commission Meeting, many of whom expressed strong
disagreement with the proposed facility.
You were also told that there was no place to practice, and
that's a quote, "no place to practice." However, in investigating the
City of Naples Fire Fighting Training facility and discussing where
other fire districts successfully practice in the community, the
statement that there is no place to practice is misleading.
These issues cause to us wonder if there were other misleading
statements made at the May 13th Board of County Commissioner's
Meeting.
We are concerned about training noise and public safety. The
planned public playgrounds and picnic tables are located very close to
the Immokalee Road entrance and planned fire station where 15 to 20
ton emergency vehicles will be rushing to fire and rescue calls and
where children could wander into dangerous training areas.
There's also concern about the lake on the property, which will
be utilized for dive rescue training. The training at the lake could
constitute an undesirable and dangerous attraction to children. Noise
issues are very dependent on how and when training is conducted and
equipment is used. It's easy enough to say that there will be no
problem, but once the facility is constructed there's very little
recourse, very little legal recourse.
Since the Board of County Commissioners is ultimately responsible
for protecting the public interest when approving zoning changes, the
Greater Naples Civic Association requests that you proceed with your
customary due diligence to ensure that you have the full and complete
story before making a decision on the proposed land use amendment.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I feel the need to ask a question.
The applicant here is actually J.D. Nicewonder, so the petition itself
for fezone is not affected regardless of whether there's a contract on
the property; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second part of my question is the
statements made by Chief Tobin regarding operation on this land. If
he is not a contract purchaser, can those statements be binding?
Because typically we get either the owner or the contract purchaser
and we have commitments made by them on the record. If you are not a
contract purchaser, in essence a third party making operational
statements, are those binding legally?
MR. WEIGEL: I think a question, to answer your question with a
bit of a question is, if he is in a representative capacity of the
contract purchaser, there may be a tie back or a potential for a
binding statement or responsibility or liability for the statements
that were made.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can't we make those conditions of approval
regardless of who commits?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think that you would want to make a
conditional approval for facts that have not been found or facts that
are to be determined outside of the hearing process. However, or else
I would say that you don't necessarily even have to make a
determination as to the factual nature of these statements, either.
They are part of the composite, the aggregate package of information
that has come before you. You are looking at this with the relatively
limited review and approval responsibility, looking to compatibility
density.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So without a document that identifies Mr.
Tobin as an agent of the owner or an agent of the applicant, we must
then rely upon the applicant's representative here to make those
statements. Otherwise, we really don't have -- we really can't hold
their feet to the fire, so to speak. It's as if a member of the
public stands up and says, I'll do this if you fezone this property.
If they're not acting technically on behalf of the applicant, then the
statements are really not of use to us.
MR. WEIGEL: That's true in the abstract. I just do not know if
the distinction of Mr. Tobin as the fire chief of this district is as
removed, as potentially may be, I do not know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just want to know if we can count on
everything that was indicated at the last meeting as a matter of right
in making either approval or denial before doing so? That's my
question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because it's very relevant. I mean, the
operational questions are extremely relevant to the land use decision,
so is there a representative of the owner here? You represent Mr.
Nicewonder?
MR. FARRAR: (Nods head.)
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. I would just -- I guess I just want to
caution the board based on that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a good point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that the only commitments that can be made
here today that are fully binding are those made by the petitioner or
his assigned representative. Statements made by the Fire District, at
this point, assuming there is no valid contract on the property, I
don't see them as fully binding.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can a representative of the owner give
authority to the chief to speak? Can he take that trail of agency one
step further, so that for efficiency purposes and getting information
on the record?
MR. WEIGEL: To whom is your question directed?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: To you. If Mr. Nicewonder has given Mr.
Farrat his agency, his power of attorney, can he then give it to Chief
Tobin? I thought that might make it easier, but if not --
MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes. That really lies between their
own understandings and relationship.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem I have is every time I used to
come in and do a fezone for property, anyone who spoke on behalf of
the owner had to have a signed affidavit allowing them to act in that
capacity. It's a standard policy in our planning department that
third parties, you know, really aren't held to commitments made on the
record, without some type of linkage and that's my concern, is we were
told that we have a contract to purchase, which to me was a physical
document link in some way. If that's not the case, then that physical
link does not exist and what Mr. Tobin said cannot necessarily be
counted upon unless the petitioner commits to it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't you have Mr. Farrat stand up and
telink the commitments, if you want.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's fine. I just wanted to make
sure the path was clear.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who is the person -- I'm sorry to say
this, Scott Whip or something like that is --
MR. FARRAR: Scott Whipple --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, we need you on the microphone if you're
going to make a --
MR. FARRAR: Scott Whipple was a planner with Agnoli, Barber, and
Brundage.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's actually the firm who's the agent
for Mr. Nicewonder.
MR. FARRAR: Correct, and that's why I'm here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry to add length to that, but I just
wanted to be very clear about -- because I need to go back now and
remember what it was we got commitments on, if we're gonna move ahead
on this petition today, because I need to have them restate it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's why I was suggesting that maybe
we have Mr. Tobin come up and state them and then ask Agnoli's
representative to --.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go on with the public speakers and then
we'll have to come back to that.
MR. HCNEES: Mr. Tomkovich and your final public speaker is
Ernest Brooks.
MR. TOMKOVICH: Good morning. My name is Emil Tomkovich and I'm
here representing Regent Park Master Association. We'd like to air
our concerns about the proposed fire burning school to be relocated --
to be located in our front yard.
We built here eight years ago in a nice residential area. If we
had known someone wanted to build a fire training school here, we
would not have built.
Let them build a fire station if one is needed in our area, but
no fire training school for all fire departments to take part in.
This type of fire burning school, if needed, should be built out in
some open area. Not in a built up residential area.
We hope you commissioners will take this into consideration when
you're rezoning this parcel of land. Thank you. MR. HCNEES: And Mr. Brooks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Brooks is our last speaker.
MR. HCNEES: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, the last speaker, were you a
representative from the association or speaking individually?
MR. TOHKOVICH: I was a representative of the association.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He replied a representative of the
association for the record, so, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Go ahead, sir.
MR. BROOKS: Morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is
Ernest Brooks, I'm a board member of the Regent Park Homeowners'
Association and I feel that we've been misquoted here. I understand a
statement was made that the fire service had checked with all the
residents in the area. As far as we're concerned, we have heard
nothing from them and at a meeting we held last Thursday, a unanimous
vote was made to try and stop the building of the training facility.
There is concern about the fire station and there's also far
greater concern about the training facility. This would disrupt the
quality of life in the area, with the noise and it would also impact
on the traffic on Immokalee Road, which is at the moment very
congested. Between Airport Road and the entrance to Regent Park,
there have been diversions made quite recently due to the congestion
on that road and this would add even more to the problems in that
area, and I would ask the commissioners to consider these points when
they're making their decision. Thank you so much.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brooks, can you describe just
geographically --
MR. BROOKS: What?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you describe for me geographically
the relationship of Regent Park to this parcel? Where exactly is
Regent Park?
MR. BROOKS: Regent Park is to the east of the proposed
development.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BROOKS: Regent Park is just east of Circle K.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. BROOKS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Just for a note, though, and just
clarification, Regent Park does not abut this property; am I clear on
that? I just --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what's confusing. There's a picture
here, and that's true to my understanding, but I'm looking at, it
looks like two houses that do abut it. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: But isn't that part of Four Seasons?
MR. NINO: Regent Park is about 600 feet removed from the subject
property. There is an office and a commercial establishment, the gas
station.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Right behind that, George, is that part of
Four Seasons?
MR. NINO: That's part of Four Seasons.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, I've got a problem
with a couple things that have been said here, and perhaps there's a
response, but Ms. Vasey's points, I don't know if we've been misled or
if there were some misstatements made, but -- if -- clearly there are
some public objections and there was a statement on the record a
couple weeks back that there had been none. So I feel a little misled
about that.
I feel a little misled about the costs, which really aren't our
bailiwick, but none the less, I'd hate to have something on the record
than isn't true, under oath. We were clearly misled about the
contract, and if we've been misled about all those things, it makes we
wonder what else is going on with this. So, I'm gonna withdraw my
motion on the item because I'm not comfortable with it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a question for Chief Tobin. If I could
ask the Chief to come back up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't mind, may I say while he's
coming, there were a lot of letters of support that were talked about.
I'd love to see a list of those, if anybody's got them or if anybody
has copies of those, I'd like to get some facts there about who says
yes and who says no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do have a record that we'll enter for the
court reporter of the 16 phone calls; 13 in favor, 3 against that were
received by the board offices on this item.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there were some community association
letters and I was interested in getting those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Willoughby Acres, I think Palm River and
so forth.
Chief, I just want to clarify a couple things.
MR. TOBIN: Yes, on Thursday --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you let me ask the question, we can get to
the clarification part. MR. TOBIN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You stated that there was a contract on the
property that had an expiration of June 1st. MR. TOBIN: That's right, there is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There is a physical contract with the
property --
MR. TOBIN: Yeah. I was with the lawyers, we were asked on
Thursday for the contract. We were able to -- I had the memorandum of
understanding. There were two things, a memorandum of understanding,
plus a real estate contract, and that was based on the PUD and then
the memorandum of understanding was based on approval of the Board of
Fire Commissioners. So, yes, there is, I just don't have it here with
me, but we do have, you know, the long white contract. Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we heard this item on the 13th, was there
a contract --
MR. TOBIN: Yes
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- at that time that was valid and approved by
your board?
MR. TOBIN: No, the board had not --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not trying to trip you up here, Chief, I'm
just looking at what information we were given. I was led to believe
on that date there was a contract to purchase the property --
MR. TOBIN: Yes, there is, upon board approval, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then there was no contract.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, that's not true, that's not fair. Let
me just do a little lawyer stuff here. Contracts often have
contingencies. There is a contract that's contingent on rezoning.
There's a contract contingent on the fire commission approval. A
contract with contingencies is the way I understood --
MR. TOBIN: Right, that's correct. That what's it was, because
we didn't want to enter into a contract without, you know, first
having approval of the board and also make sure that the PUD would go
through for the training part of it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly understand contracts with
contingencies, but if it hasn't been to your board yet, I don't know
what kind of contract it is.
If Mr. HcNees or Mr. Weigel draws up a contract and we've never
discussed it in this forum, there is no contract. It may be something
they're working on, but there's no contract.
MR. TOBIN: The interpretation that I received from the board on
the 13th and also again in Hay, was they're 100 percent -- and
Commissioner Haguire's here -- approval to move forward with the
project, as long as we were able to get the PUD, you know, the tapes
are there. It says it right in the minutes, that it says, you know,
it was brought up, a motion was bought up, seconded and approved to
move forward. I mean, that's what it says.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was looking to clarify a single statement.
The second question is we now have heard that at least a neighborhood
in the very near area --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Six hundred feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- six hundred feet feels a little
misrepresented. Is this the only site that you have had any offers or
consideration of along that corridor? Are there any other sites
you've looked at that aren't next to neighborhoods?
MR. TOBIN: The group before I came was out diligently looking at
different sites and again, you know, we've looked at the prices of
other sites, what they went for and on the average they were $200,000
to $300,000 an acre.
This here not having any, you know, impact, we didn't feel, on
the neighborhood, was the best site for us to do what we wanted to do
there. You know, there's no noise, people are being -- talking about
being misled, but there's no noise or traffic or those types of
things. I'm sorry, I'm not feeling very well today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's okay, and, again, I'm not trying to
make a big issue out of nothing, but I've received conflicting
information about this entire process so I just need to be clear on
some things.
MR. TOBIN: The clear is that we were directed to go out and find
some land. We went out and found some land. Then we got permission
to talk to those people. We sat down and talked to those people. We
drew up a contract based on the approval of the Board of County
Commissioners and plus getting past the planning review and also a
memorandum of understanding that it be approved by our Board of Fire
Commissioners, and on two occasions, the project was told to go
forward with a hundred percent approval of our board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I appreciate that. That's not the
question. The question is have you had discussions with anyone about
other parcels in this area for a training facility?
I need to know what your options are and is there anyone else
that you have discussed alternative sites with that are in this area.
Have you had any of those discussions?
MR. TOBIN: I have had one discussion with -- of a piece of
property we looked at, but we didn't -- again, we were gonna pay over
$100,000 per acre and that property had a river running through it, so
there was a lot of environmental concerns about that property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the one by the community park?
MR. TOBIN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought that was listed at 450,000.
MR. TOBIN: Yeah, we were only gonna get about four and a half
acres of that, five at the most, and then it was in the back and the
river was going through it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a 10 acre parcel, but I think there was
an option on about eight acres of it, but that's -- and I just want to
know that other parcels have been looked at, because it sounds like
you do have some objections from a neighborhood nearby, and a lot of
times in public facilities we are obviously trying to be -- try to be
extremely compatible in their location and operation, whether it be a
fire station or a community park. I mean, we get complaints about
ball field lights in community parks, so, you know, it's a real issue
that if the community is not welcoming it with half open arms, we're
opening ourselves up to problems down the road. That's my concern,
I'm just looking at what else is out there. Those are the two
questions I had. Are there any other questions for Chief Tobin?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
MR. TOBIN: I guess, Commissioner, I don't know what else we can
do, other -- you know. We had a contract, I don't know how we would
enter into one without those conditions in there about your approval.
I mean how would we do that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My question goes back, Chief, to on the
13th when you related to the board here that you had contacted all the
property owners.
MR. TOBIN: We sent people out.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask the question before you answer
it, so you'll know what exactly I'm asking, but you said you had
checked with all the surrounding neighborhoods and had received no
objection yet.
Today we hear two board members from Regent Park saying they were
not contacted, and I'm just curious as to why you would tell us you
had, when they say you had not? I mean obviously sombody's not --
MR. TOBIN: We sent people out in cars and my understanding is
that our training captain did speak to people in Regent Park and
that's, you know, where that information came back to me, that we had
people going out and knocking on doors and, especially, the people
abutting it, they actually went out and knocked on people's doors and
spoke to them.
I don't know how much of a concern he has. I believe, you know,
that's 600 feet or maybe even a little bit more away, but they went
across the street, you know, Willoughby Acres, Palm River. There's
nobody to the west of us at all. There's nobody really to the rear of
the lakes there, and then there's a few houses there. They knocked --
actually went and knocked on their doors and those types of things,
and I believe that's as far as he went, he went over and knocked on
some doors to tell some people what was going on and happening.
We probably should have gone over and talked to their group, in
retrospect, to give them two sides of the story. You know, we, again,
you know, we've been, as much as we can and wherever we're invited, or
we can get through, we've been handing out the newsletter, you know,
and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Didn't you say you went to 300 houses?
MR. TOBIN: No. We've talked to about over 300 people in the
last three weeks at different meetings. Palm River, spoke to some
church groups. We went to Naples --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. I remember -- I thought you
said you went to 300 homes in the immediate area at the last hearing.
MR. TOBIN: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Okay. Commissioner Norris, did that
answer your question? Okay. Commissioner Hac'kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm having trouble with this too, Chief,
because when we talked about it, the understanding -- now I'm just
gonna be blunt. The understanding that I had was that everybody in
the neighborhood knew about this, agreed to it, thought it was a great
idea. Initially, we were concerned about what does a training
facility look like and you, frankly, you have allayed my fears about
the operations because of the no smoke, no burning outside the
building, et cetera, those kinds of things. MR. TOBIN: But --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me just -- but my problem is, maybe I
generalized too much from our conversation, but the impression I got
was everybody in the neighborhood thinks this is great because we have
done so much leg work, door to door and meeting with associations,
that everybody in the area loves it, but the Greater Naples Civic
Association is sort of coming in at the last minute and they haven't
-- they don't have enough information, if only they understood it,
they'd be in support of it too, but that they were the only ones
objecting, and that everybody else was all for it and, frankly, it was
based on that and the fact that you had a contract with a closing date
that I said, let's move it up a couple weeks.
MR. TOBIN: Oh, we do. We do have a contract.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not gonna argue with you about the
contract, 'cause I think people can be confused about what is and
isn't "contract" 'cause you had a contract with contingencies and we
can argue about whether or not that was a legally binding -- you know,
those things.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who had signed that contract from the
fire department?
MR. TOBIN: I did.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And when did your board approve that?
MR. TOBIN: They approved it on the 13th and they also --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They approved the contract?
MR. TOBIN: They were --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Concept.
MR. TOBIN: The concept of moving --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what I asked. I didn't ask
who signed the concept of it. You said we do have a contract?
MR. TOBIN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When did your board approve the
specifics of that contract?
MR. TOBIN: Specifics of the contract were always known to the
Board of Commissioners and when the whole project was brought up, we
brought the renderings up, the pictures up --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Chief, Chief, the question is, when did your
board approve a physical contract?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe Mr. Haguire ought to answer that
question since he's the chairman of the board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you not know? Can you not answer
the question?
MR. TOBIN: Well, they approved the project and the buying --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what I asked and you know
what the question is. I'd appreciate an answer to my question. MR. TOBIN: They still have to approve --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They have not yet approved the
contract --
MR. TOBIN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- have they?
MR. TOBIN: No, they have to -- they know there's a contract in
hand based on your approval.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Has there been a vote by the board?
MR. TOBIN: No, the board of commissioners still needs to approve
that purchase of that property. Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So they have not done that to date?
MR. TOBIN: No, they have not. They still need to do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have an operational question. How many
parking spaces are on that design?
MR. FARRAR: I don't have the tally right with -- I don't have
the tally.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean, I'm just looking at it. It looks like
something in the area of a 170, 200 spaces.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It looks like Sam's parking lot.
MR. FARRAR: Well, this rendering right here wasn't provided from
Agnoli, however, there will be adequate parking, but I think that does
show in excess of the required parking needed for the facility.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, it's entered as an exhibit as a
part of this fezone. Our calculations, when we looked at traffic
impacts, were comparing 100,000 square feet of commercial, which would
result in 400 parking spaces, with a training facility, which would
have far less traffic. Understandably, it will have far less traffic,
but why in God's name there are over 200 parking spaces for a fire
training facility, I'm having a tough time with.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Leave it as few parking spaces as possible
is my personal vote.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There has to be a method to the madness here.
Chief, why are there over 200 parking spaces there?
MR. TOBIN: The reason for that right there is so they can do the
driver training and certify emergency response drivers. You have to
have that size of an area for them to drive around cones and make
their turns. I mean, they're not speeding or anything, but that was
one of the reasons for this, you know, why we liked the property, we
were able to certify our drivers, which they have to do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that's incorrectly shown as parking? That
should be a driving training area?
MR. TOBIN: Correct. I think that was the easiest thing for them
to mark in to give it the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what happens when engineers do designs.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Was this drawing actually done for this
specific piece of property? MR. TOBIN: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: By whom? Does anybody know?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, who did this?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If this is not Agnoli's drawing, who did
it? Put it on the record, please.
MR. FARRAR: Tisch Architects and Associates.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I change my statement to that's what
happens when architects do parking.
MR. TOBIN: I just need -- I just need to try to clear up and
always the Board of Fire Commissioners had the final approval, you
know, and that contract was always based on you, as a group, approving
that PUD change. In other words, because there would be no reason for
us to buy it then.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We knew it was conditioned on our
approval. The question is did your Board of Fire Commissioners
contract to purchase this piece of property.
MR. TOBIN: No, I did. I put the contract in based on your
approval and then after you approve, then they were gonna approve it,
because we didn't want to own a piece of property we couldn't do what
we were supposed to do on.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've got a -- I'm sensing a problem here
because there was -- there hasn't been a problem on the part of this
board in the need of a training center and a facility do to that. I
think we all agree that it's needed throughout the county for the
individual districts to operate from, and no one here is saying we
don't want a training facility, but there just seem to be a lot of
inconsistencies in this process that are causing me to question the
overall project.
I think there are other locations in the nearby area that maybe
wouldn't have a lot of these problems, but I guess it's -- I don't
know, this has the danger of becoming an anti-fire district thing and
that's not what it's intended to be. There's -- when I'm not
comfortable with a decision, when I'm not comfortable with the
information that's all been laid in front me, I tend to hesitate and
that's what I'm doing right now is hesitating based on that.
Commissioner Mac'kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wonder if anybody was able to
collect those letters of associations who had indicated their support.
I wanted to see those.
MR. TOBIN: You have them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have received them. We all should have
received them. I do know it was for, at least, Willoughby Acres, Palm
River.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Initially, the Second District Association.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Initially, Second District Association.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there some update to the Second
District Association's position?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, other than individual members have -- of
that board have identified concerns.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean who is and who isn't in favor among
the neighborhood associations, is what I'd like to know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since we brought the Second District
Association -- I see Ms. Tragesser is here. Terry, could you let us
know what the Second District's position is.
Mr. Tobin, can I ask you to step aside for a second, while Ms.
Tragesser --
MS. TRAGESSER: For the record Terri Tragesser, board member,
Second District. I'd just like to make the record accurate in that
the Second District has not taken a position on this. We have
provided a town forum for people to become more knowledgeable. At no
time in the past or currently, have we taken a position on this issue.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question?
MS. TRAGESSER: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How well attended was the town forum?
MS. TRAGESSER: Oh, gosh. I'm not a real good -- guesstimate,
I'd say between 75 and a hundred were there.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's rather well attended.
MS. TRAGESSER: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And would you be willing --
MS. TRAGESSER: Half of them were representatives of the fire
department though.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Would you be willing to give some
characterization to was it a supportive or a negative meeting.
MS. TRAGESSER: We had staff from the fire department, they were
of course very --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
MS. TRAGESSER: -- positive about it. We had a public comment
from Pelican Bay and Quail Woods and Regency Park who spoke in the
negative.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And any positive speakers at all?
MS. TRAGESSER: We had -- it's difficult. People didn't identify
themselves totally, but I would have to imagine that there had to be
at least one person from the public who spoke in favor of it, to be
fair.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But more negative than positive?
MS. TRAGESSER: I wasn't -- I don't want to comment on that.
That wouldn't be fair.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that was the purpose of the Second
District was to have an informational forum as I understand.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. TRAGESSER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for clarifying that, Ms. Tragesser.
Folks, we need to come back to the issue of a land use request
that's before us, and to be fair, I think most petitions that have
this kind of level of discussion, this type of discussion, are usually
rejected out of hand because there's just a basis of inconsistency
that has run --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's a cloud over it, frankly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- from one hearing to the next.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A bad cloud over it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can't quantify those to a list of two on
three things that we can give yes or no answers to that make it
comfortable. I wish I could. But we need to either wrap this up with
some questions of the petitioner. Are there any other questions of
the petitioner? Seeing none, I'm gonna close the public hearing.
We need a motion on this matter one way or another.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, you indicated earlier we
don't want this to be interpreted regardless of what we do as having
any difficulty with our fire districts and I certainly don't
anticipate that. I think -- I do and I think the board supports the
idea of having some sort of training facility. I do feel like we were
misled. We were told there was a contract, there isn't one.
MR. MAGUIRE: Excuse me, may I rebut that as chairman of the
Board of Fire Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Maguire, unfortunately the public hearing
has been closed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We were told there was really no
objection from the neighbors. There clearly is, and I appreciate the
effort going door to door. I know how much effort that can be, but we
also need to meet with those associations and clearly there are some
who have some concerns who have objections to it.
I think there are legitimate compatibility questions and there
are certainly safety questions. The safety ones we may or may not be
able to deal with. I think he answered some of those when we heard
this before, but I think there are too many unanswered questions and
too many things that seem to have differed two weeks ago from today,
and I can't make assumptions that all is going to be okay.
If we've been misled or if things have changed in that two-week
period, I don't have a comfort level with that, and I'm gonna make a
motion that we deny the request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on the motion. Who's
the -- may I ask my question, Ms. Chairman, know that --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The effect of a denial is that this
petition couldn't come back for six months?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that's correct, unless it comes back with a
change.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that correct, somebody?
MR. MULHERE: Unless there were significant changes in the
proposal, six months.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or unless they met the -- somebody did a
request for reconsideration, it can come back within 30 days? MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I am not convinced that this needs
to be denied, but I am fully convinced that this needs a whole lot
more information disseminated to the public, and I wonder if we could
do something other than deny it. If we can table it again or somehow
continue it, because I hate to turn it down because, frankly, out of
respect for the Fire Commission Board, to give them the right to fix
whatever needs to be fixed, if they can.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that, but I think it's
the petitioner's responsibility whether it's a public agency or a
private corporation to make sure they have all their ducks in a row
when they come and make a request. We've heard it twice now and we're
still not clear. So I think we've given ample opportunity. We've
given twice the opportunity your average petitioner is given and it's
still not clear, so I think you made the point that we could either --
we'd have an opportunity to reconsider or it's markedly different, it
can come back anyway, and I think they need to take responsibility for
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And I apologize I had to take that. We
had a motion on the floor. Was there a second on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not yet.
COHHISSIONER BERRY: We're still considering this issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there any desire prior to moving
ahead because I will -- I would second the motion to get it to a vote,
to determine where we are, but is there any desire to reopen the
public hearing for the need of additional information?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would very much like to reopen the
public hearing out of respect to the Chief -- sorry, to the Chairman
of the Fire Commission.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. For the purpose of just -- I know Mr.
Haguire had some comments, I'm going to reopen the public hearing for
that alone. Mr. Haguire.
MR. HAGUIRE: Thank you very much, Commissioner. I think many
allegations have been made here of misrepresentation and I will, you
know, I am under oath, I understand that and before the Chief had made
any commitments to Mr. Nicewonder, he approached me as commission --
as the chairman of the commission and asked for advice on this matter,
and I authorized the Chief to go forward and sign a sales agreement,
if you wish, conditional, and I think we were doing nothing more than
being diligent, as your board would be, in making sure that all our
ducks were in a row before we committed to the purchase of the
property, and those two issues that we had to clear up was number one,
the zoning, and then number two, was bringing it back with a contract
to bring it before the board for a completion or a vote to sign the
contract, but I did authorize the Chief to go forward to execute a
sales agreement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When was that, Mr. Haguire?
MR. HAGUIRE: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When was that?
MR. HAGUIRE: I believe that was the board meeting of March 13th.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many board meetings have you had
since March 13th?
MR. HAGUIRE: There's one every month.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any reason why the board
hasn't taken up that issue? And the reason I ask that question, is if
Commissioner Hancock directed Mr. HcNees to enter into a contract and
then several commission meetings went by and we didn't bring it up and
talk about it as a group, I'd have a problem with that. I wouldn't
consider that an action of the Board of Commissioners. There are
occasionally emergency times that those things have to happen, but if
we then went through three or four commission meetings and didn't have
that formal discussion and didn't either endorse or rescind that
action, I'd have a problem with that.
MR. HAGUIRE: I think we were just being prudent to make sure
that all the steps had been taken. To bring it back before the board
knowing that all the steps had been taken care of before it came
before the board and we had a legitimate reason to go into a formal
contract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So let me just make sure that I
understand. It would be prudent for an individual fire commissioner
to give direction to the chief to enter into a contract, not take it
to a public hearing, that's prudent?
MR. HAGUIRE: No. As chairman, I think I'd have the -- you know,
I think there's a big difference and here again, another allegation
was made of some violation of the Sunshine Law, but for the chief to
be able to come and speak to the chairman of the board, I think the
difference is, is keeping the constituency in the sunshine and maybe
operating the fire department or district in the dark.
If that fire chief can't come to it's commissioner or to the
chairman and ask for advice, not that he's polling or not that he's,
you know, cross-talking between the commissioners, but he has to be
able to ask for advice and see what direction the commission's going
to be telling him to go on some type of matter of this importance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In my judgment, this is exactly where we
should not be, and that is in the business of how the fire commission
operates, because my --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only question was whether or not
there was a contract and if, you know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I don't want to get in the position of
saying they do or don't do it right because I may have a whole lot of
comments about the way they do their business.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think your questions regarding the contract
are appropriate. However, what Mr. Haguire does or doesn't think
prudent is between he, the electorate, and the chief, period.
we'll --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed, and my point is there has been
ample opportunity for the fire commission to actually make a formal
contract. I don't think as it is there's a formal contract out there.
MR. HAGUIRE: You know additionally -- additionally, there have
been allegations that this hasn't been in the budget. It's been in
the budget for well over a year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Haguire, I tried not to make this a
discussion --
MR. HAGUIRE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- about those internal aspects of the fire
department for that reason. So, if we open that box up then --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You don't want to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We just don't want to go there, quite frankly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If there's not a second to that motion,
I'd make a motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, no, the public hearing is open, right
now.
Commissioner Norris, did you have a question? I thought I saw
you signify.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a statement once you close the
public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Haguire. Thank you.
MR. HAGUIRE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
We have a motion on the floor.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm gonna second it because I'm just
not comfortable with the way this is done. It just -- there have been
so many things that are different today than they were two weeks ago
and I'm just not comfortable going ahead.
If they want to bring it back in a form and make sure that
they've got -- that everything they're going to tell us is correct.
I'm not saying that, of course, that they intentionally misled us, I'm
just saying some of the information we received two weeks ago has
turned out not to be correct and if they want to bring this back at
some future date with correct information, I'll be glad to listen to
it, but I -- you know, I've got two sides of the story. I have no way
of knowing which is right and which is wrong, at this point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris, my problem with the
motion to deny is that it does not give them the opportunity to bring
it back with proof of who's right and who's wrong.
back.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Sure it does.
How? They got six --
Six months from now.
Six months from now they can bring it
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or they have the reconsideration
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: More or less, today, we're kind of being asked
to make an exception that we normally don't make. When our staff or a
petitioner comes with an application where the information is
presented turns out to be different two weeks later, I don't think
this board's reaction has ever been, "Well, okay. Well, you know,
today it's fine, so let's move ahead."
With due deference to the mission of the fire district, I think
what they're trying to accomplish is both admirable and necessary, but
your lack of experience in the public petition process indicates that
I don't think you had your ducks in a row on this application when you
needed them, and I can't make an exception for you that I won't make
for any other petitioner.
I want the information presented in this meeting to be solid and
consistent from one meeting to the next and that has not really been
the case here. That's where I'm coming from. It has nothing to do
with the operation of the district. It has nothing to do with the
fire training facility itself.
It just has to do with the level of comfort, that what we're
hearing and being presented is consistent and will be consistent when
it's constructed. I don't have that level of comfort, and I think
it's a -- you're more or less a victim of the process, and unfamiliar
with it more than anything else, but that's what -- that's what we're
dealt with here.
There's a motion and a second on the floor.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that motion is again?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion is, Commissioner Constantine would
you restate the specific --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To deny the petition.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To deny the petition. The second is in the
same form. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor signify
by saying aye. Opposed?
Petition is denied five to zero, and somewhere in all this mess
is my agenda. There it is.
Item #12B3
ORDINANCE 97-24 PETITION PUD-96-11(1), KAREN K. BISHOP OF PROJECT
HANGEHENT SERVICES, INC., OF NAPLES REPRESENTING PELICAN STRAND LTD.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHICH
WILL CONTINUE TO BE KNOWN AS PELICAN STRAND HAVING THE EFFECT OF
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED DWELLING UNITS FROM 680 DWELLING
UNITS TO 1200 DWELLING UNITS IN RESPONSE TO A PREVIOUS AMENDMENT
INCREASING THE AREA OF THE PELICAN STRAND PUD BY 375.269 ACRES, BY
REVISING THE COHMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY WHILE RETAINING THE SAME
NUMBER OF ACRES FOR COHMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY MAKING OTHER REVISIIONS
TO THE TEXT OF THE PUD AND BY ADOPTING A NEW MASTER PLAN TO ACCOUNT FOR
ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRACTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF 1-75 AND IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), IN SECTIONS
18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 575 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED
We are to item 12(B)(3), petition PUD 96-11(1). Karen Bishop of
Project Management Services. Again, the fact this is a PUD, I'd like
to ask all, both petitioners, staff, and members of the public here to
speak on this item to please stand and raise your right hand.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, while they're doing that, for
the record, I will be abstaining on this petition.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Madam court reporter, would you please swear
them in.
(Whereupon, all speakers on this issue were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record, planning services. You'll
recall that the Pelican Strand PUD was recently amended to include an
additional 375 acres of land within its boundaries. You-all know
where Pelican Strand is located. I hope you allow me to shortcut that
discussion.
At that time, the petitioner had indicated that they did not want
to assign any development intensity or density to that land because
they wanted to get started on the development of their project prior
to the DRI process, which would have been triggered had they added the
additional units at that time.
They're now before us asking to sort of catch up with what they
might have otherwise done the first time around and allocate 520
dwelling units to the 375 acres. Actually, they'd be raising the
number of dwelling units from 680 to 1200 and really it's over the
entirety of the PUD.
However, for purposes of comparison, we're really, I guess we're
dealing with 520 units on 375 acres. Although, the effect of that is
more significant when you take it over the entire PUD in terms of
lowering the density over what is currently authorized on 190 acres.
Six hundred eighty units are authorized on 190 acres. This brings it
up to 1200 on 575 acres. That drives the density down over that,
which is currently authorized. This PUD --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, I'm sorry, in a nutshell the current
PUD is 3.58 units per acre and the additional density in acreage is at
1.39; is that --
MR. NINO: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Averages it out to 2.2.?
MR. NINO: Two point two, correct.
The PUD has undergone a review by all jurisdictional staff
members having to do with determining consistency with the Growth
Management Plan or the Land Development Code.
The PUD before you embodies all of those concerns and with
respect to all issues, other than transportation, the PUD is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and provisions of the Land
Development Code.
With respect to transportation, we have a problem. The problem
can most simply be stated by advising you that by 1999, the
projections are that Immokalee Road is going to experience a
deficiency in terms of its design level of service, and because of
that -- because of that this report recommends that the added -- the
additional 520 units be made contingent upon --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to interrupt just for a
second and I apologize, but didn't we just hear on the last petition
something about we weren't approaching -- we weren't gonna have any
deficiency problems on Immokalee Road, I swear to goodness I heard
that when we were talking about the fire station.
MR. NINO: That's true, and that's a very difficult issue to
explain.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds hard to explain.
MR. NINO: We're dealing with -- well, let someone more
articulate than I on the matter, perhaps, address it.
MR. KANT: For the record, Edward Kant, transportation services.
I believe that the issue with respect to the fire station,
Commissioners, had to do with a different segment of Immokalee Road.
The segment of Immokalee Road from -- up to Airport Road is shown as
level of service B, whereas the segment from Airport Road to 1-75 is
presently shown as level of service A, with an expected deficiency --
with no expected deficiency 'til the year 2004. So that may be why
the question arose.
With this particular segment -- project, the segment of road in
question is 1-75 to 951 and that does show an expected deficiency in
the year 1999.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Kant, let me ask you since we've got you
up. The -- is it written into their PUD that they will donate
right-of-way subject to impact fee credits?
MR. KANT: I don't have the details in front of me, but there was
some discussion, I believe and I might stand corrected if I'm wrong,
but I believe there was some right-of-way on the east/west segment of
what we call the Livingston Road Extension that was going to be part
of an impact fee developer contribution agreement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Here's my question, and this really
goes to a broader issue than this particular project. If a single
project has a significant enough impact on a roadway segment to create
a deficiency, in other words it's a combination of that project and
any increasing traffic, but let's say that project has a substantial
impact on that segment and we offer development impact fee credits,
isn't that kind of flying in the face of the concept?
I mean, shouldn't we be requesting contribution from the
developer without impact fee credits in addition to that? Because I
just have a problem with that.
It's like if you dump 2000 units onto one segment of a road,
you're causing the deficiency. Not the people up the road, not the
people down the road. There's kind of a weighing there in my opinion
that our ordinance doesn't really address.
MR KANT: I -- I may not be fully qualified to argue that issue
or even to discuss that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Neither may I, but that didn't stop me.
MR. KANT: But what I would say, sir, is that any development
impact fee agreement, of course is subject to board ratification, and
if the board does not feel that it's appropriate, then obviously the
board has that right.
In this particular case, whether they build one unit or whether
they build 1,200 units, every time they pull a permit, they have to
make sure that the adequate public facilities ordinance requirements
are met. So that at some point in time, even if they have the ability
to build the 2,000 units, if they can't build more than 200 units and
come up with a deficiency, then something has to be done to that
roadway network, so, and usually the DRI, the development order that
comes down through the regional planning agency, addresses these more
macro-issues.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What you're saying to us, Mr. Kant, then,
is that the problem takes care of itself.
MR. KANT: In a manner of speaking, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And concurrency -- correct me if I'm wrong,
but concurrency is actual traffic counts -- based on actual traffic
counts, not projections, and since -- and I think, this segment is
Airport Road to 75, not 75 to 951. This is west of 75.
MR. NINO: The recommendation is that we have a problem in both
directions -- the recommendation acknowledges that we have a problem
in both directions and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But the distinction is, maybe, but you
don't know that until you take the actual traffic counts. MR. NINO: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And you're assuming that all permitted
units in this whole section of the county are built and they're not
and they may not ever be, but you don't know that.
MR. NINO: That's right, but we're required under the traffic --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My point is that I don't know why we want
to put the onus on one particular property, when there are numerous
properties involved in causing the traffic problem some distant day in
the future.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: I know you're addressing staff, but you're
really addressing me and my point, so, you know, let me -- what I'm
saying is I do not want this particular fezone action to tie in the
impact fee credit done deal, because I want the opportunity to review
it in singular and I'll tell you why.
If you have a 2,000 acre project that has 10 points of access on
four different roads, its impact is spread out and does not have a
tremendously adverse impact on a single segment of road, but if you
have a single point of contact or two points of contact on two
roadways, you are gonna have a more adverse impact.
So those impact fee credits need to be looked at in light of the
design of the roadway network and its impact on segments. So what I'm
saying is let's not just give it as a matter of right in every course,
if they're gonna dump all the units out on one segment and adversely
impact it to a greater degree, then I think there should be a donation
of right-of-way in addition to impact fees.
That's -- it's a middle ground I'm looking to get to in the
future. I think the discussion needs to happen at the time of impact
fee credit requests, but I'm setting the stage for that now,
hopefully, not just for this project, but for all of them from this
point forward.
MR. KANT: Commissioner Hancock, I might point out that all of
the developer contribution agreements, which is a geek speak for the
impact fee credit, comes back to the board and all of the provisions
that we normally put into the various PUD documents represent that any
of these so called staff recommendations or agreements are subject to
the board's ratification of it, at all times.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Again, I'm just making sure the fezone does
not tie that issue, so that we cannot revisit individually in the
future. If that's the case, then I'm done with my question. Any
further questions of staff?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I just wanted in case Brent Batten is
listening to say the word of Bob Hardy.
MR. NINO: The bottom line is in order for everyone --
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Are you gonna announce the name for everyone
on every petition? Are you gonna do that for everyone?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I just wanted to do it for Brent.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know why you'd mention it here
because I don't think his name's connected to it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's probably not even in this one, it's
the son.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I hate recognizing weak articles.
MR. NINO: In order for staff to advise you that this petition is
consistent with policy 51 and 52, the traffic circulation element, we
were duty bound to recommend that the petition be -- that the
additional units be phased to the point -- to the time where the
widening of Immokalee Road is within a committed capital improvement
program and then under the Growth Management Plan there's a three-year
window for that construction to come on board.
Now, if you look at the stipulation that we're talking about in
the executive summary, what it really says is that if, in fact, as
Commissioner Norris states, reality doesn't equal the forecast, then
the stipulation has no impact on the developer. He can go forward and
develop the entire project to his 1,200 units. Now, we chatted before
this meeting and the petitioner has asked for a certain word-smithing
which would say the equivalent of what I just advised you and we
indicated to them that we wouldn't have any problem with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's present that wording and I think
-- I just had the one issue, I don't really have a problem with the
density and the other changes in this, I think it's beneficial, so
let's get that word-smithing out of the way and move on with this.
Petitioner?
MR. DORRILL: Morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name's
Neil Dotrill, and I waited 18 years to be able to say that statement.
The one change that we have agreed to was not originally in your
development order, but if you look on the last page of the staff's
executive summary, in the final sentence the staff had asked for an
addition under Section 7.7 of the development order and we're
suggesting in order to make this compliant with your existing
ordinances that are in place, that it read as follows: Except as
otherwise provided for, the application of the County's Concurrency
Management System, development of dwelling units in excess of 680
dwelling units shall, and then the additional language would be,
subject to the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance,
and then that holds us to the same burden as any other PUD or DRI
along that entire segment of road, but does not hold us to a standard
higher, and in fact we don't -- we do not believe that you can hold us
to a standard higher than what is currently in your adequate public
facilities ordinance, but by the insertion of that, then at the
issuance of each development order, we are required and obligated for
all units to participate at the level that I have just described.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of the petitioner? Anyone want
to rail the petitioner or berate him, say mean, nasty things to him?
Okay. You had your chance.
Do I have public speakers on this?
Seeing none, then I'll close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion then?
Well, okay, then the petition just dies for lack of a motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Looking for a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or rejection, someone needs to make a motion
one way or another or the item dies for lack of a motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then I'm gonna make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
Motion carries four to zero, with Commissioner Norris abstaining.
Like pulling teeth up here. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you very much.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 97-25 RE THE ADOPTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY STREETSCAPE
MASTER PLAN SO THAT THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN MAY BE INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE INTO THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED AS
AMENDED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The next item is 12(C)(1), the Collier County
Streetscape Master Plan. We are approaching the lunch hour, it looks
like the two or three after this are not that long, would you like to
just go ahead and proceed through rather than taking a lunch?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's do that. Item 12(C)(1), Mr.
Hulhere.
MR. HULHERE: Thank you. Bob Hulhere, current planning manager.
The item before you is a request to adopt by ordinance the Streetscape
Master Plan and to make a long story short, the reason for that is in
order to incorporate that by reference into the Land Development Code,
we need to have that in the form of an ordinance. It was previously
approved by the board in the form of a resolution, and so we're
bringing it back to have that done.
They are a couple of issues that I'd like to get on the record.
I know there was some concern as to whether or not we had an
opportunity to meet with the HSTU's and I wanted to let you know that
the staff has currently met with, I believe all, except the Immokalee
HSTU and we do have a meeting scheduled with the Immokalee HSTU. They
have provided us with a letter, you know, indicating that they wish to
work with us and meet with us and I don't have the details of that
letter, but Nancy Siemion does have a copy of it with her here.
There are some other potential conflicts in the document between
the standard handbooks that we use on terms of right-of-way
maintenance and right-of-way plantings, and the staff would like to
spend the next few months going over the document and bringing it back
to you, say within six months or prior to the next LDC amendment a --
any proposed revisions that might be necessitated by a review of that
document. We'll work -- and we have been working with transportation
services.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do the terms conflict between FDOT standards
that we apply at times versus the landscape architectural application?
MR. HULHERE: The design application, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's just make sure those make sense, FDOT
isn't already right.
MR. HULHERE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if Norm Feder's listening, sorry, Norm.
MR. HULHERE: If you have any questions, George Botner on behalf
of Naplescape is present, and Nancy Siemion, the landscape architect
for the county is here if there are technical questions that possibly
I couldn't answer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Since we're all relatively familiar
with the document and the process, why don't we just go over what
questions you may have and ask the appropriate people to respond to
them.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mulhere addressed mine, and that was
that the HSTU's be brought in, and apparently they have been, and I'm
satisfied with that and anxious, frankly, to adopt it as an ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As long as we know we're not gonna hang on to
those FDOT's standards for dear life as if they were the Golden Rule,
then I think that flexibility will result in a pretty good product.
That was a concern I had.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this public hearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It is. We do have speakers. I just wanted to
make sure the board's questions are at least out there first. Any
further questions?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, the question I had, I guess now is the
appropriate time to ask it in regard to how hard and fast is the
funding, the matching funds and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those are project by project, you know,
depending on whether there are state or federal grants available for
them. They're usually done in concert with roadway projects and I
think Davis -- is it Davis that we're applying on, is one of the --
well, the second one that I know of that grant funds have been applied
to or applied for.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I guess the concern that I have and
I'm certain in this case, if there's some grant money available, fine
and dandy, but whether all of those dollars, those grant funds should
be applied to one project is a concern. This was a question that was
raised to me and I'm simply bringing it before the board. Is there
any opportunity whether you go for another grant for another project
or is there any way that some of that money can be distributed among a
number of projects as opposed to just one single project?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As a practical matter, that's probably what
happens, anyway I'm --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is it? Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I'm sure that on your grant application,
you're going to have to apply those particular dollars to that
particular project, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You try to get that project approved.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- but it's just out of one pocket into the
other.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Every time we get grant money means that's
Fund 301 we didn't have to spend and that money is allocated
elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you apply for it on a project by
project basis. You have to prove the project to the state to get the
money. So in this case --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I guess maybe the better question is can you
apply for more than one project in a given year? Can you do that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. And the reason I question that is
because when I looked at the funding in here, it appeared only one
project at a time and that was what I was questioning -- I was trying
to decide is this limited to one project a fiscal year or something --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's because they're identifying one
grant, which, yes, you have to do that a project at a time as I
understand it. If I'm wrong, someone will correct me, but I believe
that particular grant, you have to identify a project and apply funds
to that project, but each year you can rotate the project.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, from a practical standpoint and I'll
let someone more expert than I am in this particular grant process,
but the way these state grants generally work is, if you submit two or
three applications, you end up competing against yourself on a
priority list. I expect that's probably the nature of it. So there's
a risk you run in submitting too many applications in a given year
that youwre fighting yourself for grant money.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think the concern that came about is
rather than just one particular area for a number of years, why not a
little something for everybody kind of thing, whether itws a smaller
segment of a roadway or something to that effect that over a few
years, you get several smaller projects done as opposed to one single
project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That may be a good way to look at that maybe
during the budget process when we start applying dollars to the
physical construction and median project. How we apply those may
address that more appropriately than just grant applications, would be
my guess.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I guess it came up when I was reading
through here and I saw the segment on grant money and projects and it
seemed to be consistent with one, which I donwt object to, you know,
technically that makes sense to go ahead and complete a project. I
understand that, but from a standpoint of people in the community that
may not be a shared feeling.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, understood. Understood. Are there
further questions of staff? Seeing none, letws go to public speakers,
and it appears for the benefit of public speakers that the boardws
direction here is more or less in agreement with our staff position on
this, so if you want to either waive the right to speak or shorten
your remarks thatws fine, too. Mr. McNees.
MR. MCNEES: Your first speaker is JoAnn Smallwood. Sheill be
followed by Vilma Cirincione.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Good morning. As -- JoAnn Smallwood, as
chairperson for the EDC Chamber of Commerce Coalition for Community
Aesthetics. I just wanted to state that representing that board, that
group, we are in support of this project and have been working for the
last two years. Chairing this, our major objective and goal has been
to see this project through the Streetscape Master Plan adopted and
codified into the county for two reasons.
One, since 1986, Iwve been working on this project from chairing
the initial Chamber Community Aesthetics to create this partnering
effort with the city and the county, as well as the community in
support of creating the green scape -- green space development is one
signature that unifies this whole community. The challenge that wewve
had over those years is that we have a number of different signatures
as every designer designs one segment, and so rather than creating the
purpose of unifying the community through landscape, wewve had many
different signatures created and the Streetscape Master Plan is to
accomplish that, and then also to address the future growth issues to
make sure that landscape is a component element in all of the
development as our community grows to keep the community as beautiful
as it is and as special and unique as it is. So that was just the
support that I wanted to mention that wewve been working towards this
for the last two years. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Smallwood.
MR. MCNEES: Vilma Cirincione, followed by Herb Savage.
MS. CIRINIONE: Iwm Vilma Cirincione. Good day. Iwm here to say
that this plan on Naplescape is nothing but a resurrection of when
they wanted to do this plan several years ago, and I went to those
hearings. At the time, I was the President of the Golden Gate Estates
Area Civic Association and I objected at the meeting because when they
were talking about 951 they were talking about the year 2010, and I
felt that by that time, I wouldn't care if they ever beautified the
road and neither did other people.
I brought it before our membership and people in the Golden Gate
area and they all turned it down. They were not interested in
something that was gonna -- we had to wait until the year 2010.
Now, at that time, this was funds they were looking for from
business people, businesses along the roads they wanted to beautify.
Well, now they've resurrected this thing and they're looking for money
from the county, which becomes our tax dollars, and some people are
objecting to this like I am.
If we're going to spend our tax dollars on this project, well,
then they have to take a different look at this project, because I
cannot see us waiting until the year 2010 for 951 to be beautified.
If you're talking about beautifying Naples for people that enter the
area from the Alley or anything, then 951 is an alternate route, a
bypass for 41, and if you're talking about beautifying to impress
people, well then I think 951 should be upgraded to almost like on the
top of the list. Not at the bottom of the list for years to come,
because people that are gonna get off at exit 15, will go up 951 to go
to Vineyards or Pelican Bay or they just want to get off the highway,
a lot of people like to do that. Well, 951 should be like let's say
number two on the list of what they're going to do, but not 15 years
from now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Vilma, I don't know if you were here
this morning, but we did a couple of changes, particularly with the
Golden Gate Beautification. HSTU had suggested some changes and we've
actually gone ahead and put 951 and Santa Barbara and asked the staff
to explore Golden Gate Boulevard in early years, as opposed to waiting
15 years for that very reason.
MS. CIRINCIONE: Well, the thing is I'm talking about 951 all the
way up to the Boulevard, not just a little piece. And another thing
is, I can't see putting in an overabundance of plants. I think a few
trees, a few bushes, maybe something at each intersection.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm gonna interrupt you, because our
discussion today is not to rank and prioritize projects. This plan
does not lock in any road in a given year. It does have a schedule in
it, but that's schedule's subject to change and approval by this
board. If we go down that path, we get everybody from all over the
county who wants their street done first and that's not how we make
the decisions.
MS. CIRINCIONE: Well, I'm looking at the beauty of -- they're
talking about beautifying Naples. I'm looking at the beauty part. If
you're talking about beauty, well, 951 should be on top of the list.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am, that's your opinion. What I'm
saying is we're not deciding today upon the ultimate ranking of that,
so we're not gonna take action on that today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And in fact, we've already adopted this
plan by resolution. We're just codifying it as an ordinance today, if
I understand the action.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There will be plenty of opportunity for you to
argue the case of 951 moving up that ranking list each year as we
discuss which projects are to be done with the funds that are
available. This, however, is not really the most appropriate time to
do it.
MS. CIRINCIONE: Well, the only thing is that it became tax
dollars, where before it was contributions from the business
community. Now it's tax dollars, which makes a difference to the
people.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's always been tax dollars.
MS. CIRINCIONE: True. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I feel an obligation to remind the
board that I mentioned also Wednesday evening at your LDC Hearing
Amendment, that the Development Services Advisory Committee had not
recommended support of this document based on the format. However,
the Planning Commission had recommended approval and I recognize we're
going to discuss that on June 4th, but I think it's appropriate that
you consider that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: Herb Savage is your final speaker.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The famous photographer, Herb Savage?
MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, and I
congratulate Mrs. Berry, I haven't had a chance to speak to the
commission since you've been on the board, and I wanted to say this
that my adrenaline has been building up ever since we saw this item
other here.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What's your name, sir?
MR. SAVAGE: I'm on the Advisory Committee that Bob has been
talking about.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Need your name for the record. I'm sorry.
MR. SAVAGE: My name is Herb Savage, architect, resident of
Collier County, speaking as individual. I'm on that Advisory
committee, subcommittee that Bob is talking about, Land Development
Code and I could not believe that I've been on that board for three
and a half years or three years, whatever it is, and I have not once
had anyone present anything to us about this as an ordinance, and
particularly when the staff of this county has done such a magnificent
job in recent times to establish along with our architectural
standards ordinance and other ordinances that have come about that
follow a certain format, and I think Bob did mention it, that the
format, whatever we do, so that everybody looks at the ordinances and
they're all in the same general format.
If a general contractor, road contractor, or some other people
look at these things to bid on, that they read an ordinance that is
pretty much the same in the Land Development Code, whether it's
Naplescape or whatever it might be.
I ask you to delay accepting this as an ordinance and refer it to
the Advisory Committee who worked diligently for hours and hours for
free in advising you and getting information from the various
development, utility departments, the public capital projects
department, all of those people, to sit and talk to the Advisory
Committee that have been appointed to advise you on these items. They
may be all good. I look at it and it looks like a document for
bureaucracy, with all these technical names, and so forth. We already
have those in the ordinances, and why we can't coordinate this and
make this the same format as our regular ordinance system, I ask that
you consider that, if you will, please. I'm not an authority on all
of these things and I'm not speaking for the Advisory Committee. I'm
speaking for Herb Savage, but each member of that subcommittee was
feeling the same way, and I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Savage.
MR. HULHERE: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Botner is in attendance and has
asked to make an announcement relative to this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is he registered to speak?
MR. HULHERE: He's not registered, but he asked that I --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Botner, come on up.
MR. HULHERE: I told him to register.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And he didn't? Well, in that case, sit down.
MR. BOTNER: Good morning or afternoon. George Botner for the
record, President of Collier Naplescape. Just wanted to come up,
wasn't intending to speak at all, but since the item did not come up
in your earlier deliberations on this topic, we felt it might be
heartwarming for you to know that we did as of Thursday afternoon
receive full funding for Davis Boulevard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Terrific.
MR. BOTNER: And that's been a year long project and it's been
one that I think epitomizes the public/private kind of partnership
that we at Naplescape and I know you folks have tried to foster
throughout all of the Streetscape work that has occurred within this
county.
Also, to recognize the fact that the Immokalee Road
Beautification Project received funding this year. So Collier County
really did quite well for itself this year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Botner, you're referring to state
grants?
MR. BOTNER: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, what was the amount for Davis
Boulevard?
MR. BOTNER: Davis Boulevard was between 145 and 150,000 maximum
that they grant and they made that apparent that that was the highest
grant that they awarded this year -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Good.
MR. BOTNER: -- for any county in the state, and Immokalee got
its full funding, whatever that amount was. I'm not familiar with the
grant request at the time, but they did get theirs as well.
District Six of which we are one of 15 counties and FDOT received
36 percent of the grant awards available this year and, you know, we
really did quite well and I want to thank you all for your support.
As you know, there was a number of resolutions that you were asked to
look at and approve as we went through this very laborious process,
but we were granted the funds and, hopefully, end of summer, early
fall, we can start to break ground in this project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Botner, thank you. Thanks to you and
Naplescape because the Davis Boulevard project wouldn't have had
nearly the chance of success or any chance of success without your
involvement and that of Naplescape, so thank you.
MR. BOTNER: Well, you're welcome and you guys played your part
too and, you know, it worked.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good, I like to hear that.
That's it for public speakers? Okay. I'm going to close the
public hearing.
The only comment I have is pages nine and ten of our packet I
think should be removed. They're really not relevant to the
Streetscape Master Plan ideals and so forth. They're just kind of the
introduction and acknowledgement. I just don't think that's
appropriate in a county ordinance. I think we should get to the meat
of the issue in the ordinance and not have that information included.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I want to make a motion to approve the
staff recommendation and I'm happy to make it with the change, you
know, that those pages nine and ten of the agenda packet be removed
because they are just acknowledgements, but also with the request that
the -- as we go through the next amendment cycle that this ordinance
be codified in the same manner as the balance of our ordinances.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second that and because
some of the questions I had two weeks have been answered. I want to
make sure that throughout the input from the MSTU's is not just merely
lip service, but truly input, and they've been doing it for a while.
They've got a good idea what works, what doesn't. I think we can
certainly learn from them, but taking into consideration the
amendments that were made two weeks ago. I'm much more comfortable
than I was this morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second on the
floor. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those
in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 97-257 RE PETITION NUA-97-1, MR. PHILLIP L. LEE REPRESENTING
CAROL A. MARTIN REQUESTING A NON-CONFORMING USE ALTERATION IN ORDER TO
REPLACE AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME WITH A NEW MANUFACTURED DWELLING FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1145 KERR COURT IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED
Okay. Thank you to everyone. Let's move on to the next item
under public hearings, Item 13 (A)(1) Petition NUA-97-1, Mr. Philip
Lee representing Carol A. Martin.
Mr. Weigel, do we need -- is this a quasi-judicial? Do we need
to swear everyone in on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I'd like to ask all members here
to speak on Item 13(A)(1), which is Petition NUA-97-1 to stand and
raise your right hand, please. There's just one person? Just staff?
Do we have anyone representing the petitioner? Thank you, sir. Would
you please swear them in?
(Whereupon, all speakers on this issue were sworn.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand the
substance here. There's currently a mobile there They would like to
replace it with a new mobile home.
MR. LEE: Yeah, they're replacing a nonconforming dwelling in the
C-5 district, but --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there anything out of the ordinary?
MR. LEE: No, similar to other ones in the area that have been
approved.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a little larger than the previous
structure, though?
MR. LEE: Slightly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And do we have any complaints from either
neighbor?
MR. LEE: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as these have come up before, we've
talked about trying to do something to our ordinance to allow staff to
have the flexibility to do, you know, somebody's improving --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You've talked about that, we haven't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've talked about that. We haven't? You
guys want to hear these every single time?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, because adjacent property owners are
affected by these types of replacements and I think it's our
responsibility to give them a chance to make it known. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This forces a public hearing, which is the
whole point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is now double as long as it
would have been.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Exactly. Mr. Bellows, you have anything that
you feel a need to get on the agenda or on the record, other than the
fact that did you did a fantastic job?
MR. BELLOWS: There was one letter of objection, but it was not
an adjacent property owner. There was one letter of objection
received, by staff, but it was not an adjacent property owner. It was
within 300 feet, however.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. It skipped a property?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Ray Bellows, again for the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Petitioner, did you need to add anything to
the record? Okay. Indicates that he does not, I'll close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Seeing none, thank you very much.
Item #13A2
PETITION CU-97-7, PAUL WHITTEN OF PANTROPIC POWER PRODUCTS, INC.,
REPRESENTING MARCO MARRIOTT HOTEL REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 2.6.9.2 OF
SECTION 2.6.9 (ESSENTIAL SERVICES) FOR TWO ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS
IN AN RT ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE MARRIOTT HOTEL'S
PARKING LOT (LOTS 1-7) LOCATED AT 400 SOUTH COLLIER BOULEVARD, MARCO
ISLAND, FLORIDA, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 6, BLOCK 177, MARCO BEACH,
UNIT 17, SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - DENIED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to item -- and once again, Mr. Bellows,
a fantastic job -- 13 (A)(2), Petition CU-97-7, Paul Whitten of
Pantropic Power Products representing Marco Marriott Hotel requesting
a conditional use for essential services. Again, this item being a
conditional use, I'm gonna ask all individuals here to testify on this
to please stand and raise your right hand. Madam court reporter,
would you please swear them in.
(Whereupon, all speakers on this issue were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who's the lucky staff member on this one
today? Is it Mr. Milk?
Mr. MILK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record my name
is Bryan Milk. I am presenting Petition CU-97-7. Petitioners are
requesting a conditional use for two electric generating plants on RT
zoning district for property located on the Harriott's Hotel parking
lot further described as lot 6.
The Marco Marriott Hotel of Marco Island, Florida, has a contract
to lease these generators from Lee County Cooperative. The purpose of
these generators is for electricity production during peak hours of
usage and power outings -- outages. The generators will produce
enough electricity to power the entire hotel and ancillary uses.
According to Lee County Cooperative, the Marriott is Marco
Island's largest single consumer of electricity. Thus, utilizing the
generators on-site during peak power demands and power outages will
provide Lee County Cooperative additional peak hour electrical
reserves for the remainder of the island.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, is the only impact here the removal
of some parking and different circulation pattern for parking?
MR. MILK: It's kind of a -- it's two phase and if I could get
into that, I'd like to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I thought there was a fast track.
Please, go ahead.
MR. MILK: I'd like to kind of explain the whole situation. This
petition is a result of a noise violation, approximately three months
ago, and if I can, currently on lot six across the street from the
Marriott is the existing chiller building, it's the air conditioning
building used for the Marriott. Directly contiguous to the east side
of that building, currently stands two electric generators, the two
generators that we're discussing here today.
These generators were put on line with an express building
permit. When they were put on line the contiguous property owners
immediately to the east, including Mr. Ross and all the single family
residents, were impacted by noise and noise vibration. So the county
went down there and did a DBA, a decibel reading on-site and found
that they were 15 decibels over and above the maximum allowable DBA
reading.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's loud.
MR. MILK: The maximum is 60, they operated between 73 and 75.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not quite as loud as outdoor music.
MR. MILK: So we had asked that they shut the generators down and
we needed to figure out what to do about what they were doing there
and if we were gonna keep them on-site, where to locate those
generators on the subject property.
They consulted some noise experts, Mr. Tanner, and local
engineering and architectural firms to come up with a plan to relocate
the generators on the western side of the cooling towers at the
northwest and west corners and they were gonna build a 13.7 foot
masonry wall with sound attenuating blocks inside for acoustical
noise, odor and vibration dispersing that upward into the air and with
that enclosure, it was thought that the resulting operational
characteristics would be dropped about 20 decibels.
In other words, if they were operating at 75, they could
ultimately be dropped down to approximately 55. Fifty-five is
important because the nighttime operating DBA reading is 55, rather
than 60, after 10 o'clock. So it goes from 60 to 55.
So their experts claim that with the block and the sound
attenuation and the capsules completely surrounding this generator
will be sufficient to encompass and provide the necessary mitigation
to buffer the sound and the odor and the vibration from the harmonics.
During the Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission
brought up the Naples Community Hospital generators that are identical
to these generators proposed on-site.
Myself and Mr. Whitten -- Mr. Whitten is the Caterpillar salesman
-- went to Naples Community Hospital and they displayed for us the
operational characteristics of those generators within the fully
enclosed building.
What's important about that is the Collier County Planning
Commission voted five to one in approval for this project with these
generators fully enclosed within a building and that they operate
conditionally for 30 days and then be brought back to the public
hearing before the Planning Commission and the board along with
another notification to the surrounding property owners.
So with that, I went with Mr. Whitten to examine how these
generators were run and what the characteristics were and there's
somewhat of differing circumstances here. Number one, those
generators are located on the roof of the hospital, which is
approximately 40 feet in the air. The enclosed building is that of a
steel structure made of approximately two vents on the side. These
vents are 12 feet by 16 feet apiece. So what happens is these
generators require a lot of air circulation for cooling and
ventilation purposes. The noise came out the side of that building
fairly loud. I mean, I say that because I was on-site when these
generators at Marco were running and I say it was actually louder than
the ones on the Marriott's property, but they had two things going for
them.
Number one, the stack was up in the air, as was the noise. So as
I moved further away, the noise was dissipated that much more.
The point I'm trying to make is I'm no expert, but the Planning
Commission recommended they encapsulate these within a building. If
we do that, I'm afraid that the ventilation provided, whether it be on
the side or somewhere on the top, is gonna direct that noise in those
directions, more directional than being dissipated up into the
atmosphere. That was just my finding on being there.
Staff has received approximately 16 letters in objection.
There's a number of property owners I've talked to also in objection,
that also showed up at the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends approval of the generators, if in fact the
stipulations are provided for and that being that of noise, odor,
vibration, operation between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. I
think the petitioner asked that that hour -- that they increase the
hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. because of the summer utility there
for peak afternoon usage. If I can answer any other questions, I'd be
happy to do so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, help me with why electric generators
are required for the hotel's operation.
MR. MILK: The electric generators are deemed an essential
service as a power generating plant. So not only are they required to
get a building permit and amend the site development plan, but they're
required to come before this board and the Planning Commission for
approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you're saying they needed more power than
FPL could provide through their normal transmission lines as that
location. Is that why they need generators?
MR. MILK: No, sir. This is an attempt to provide the Marriott
with their own supply of energy so Lee County Cooperative has more
reserves at peak power for additional users on the island. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: Because of the -- the Marriott is the single largest
consumer of electricity and the thought process here was, if they can
provide a generating plant to provide electricity for the Marriott,
then that would provide electrical reserves for the remainder of the
island.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So did the Lee County Co-op ask the
Marriott to do this or did the Marriott say we got a plan for not
paying electricity bills anymore?
MR. MILK: I think it's a joint venture here. I think Lee County
Cooperative and Caterpillar would put the units there. The Marriott
would lease these units and there would be a cost benefit to the
consumer because of the peak reserves that Lee County doesn't have to
buy from its parent's provider.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm certainly sensitive to Lee County Co-op
needs, however '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One other consideration that Mr. Milk
hasn't mentioned is that you have frequent power outages, of course,
in the summertime and this -- one of the other primary reasons for
these generators is to supply the hotel with power.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's one thing I was looking for, is
if they, you know, there's got to be a demonstrated need here other
than Lee County Co-op wanting to reduce its commitment.
MR. MILK: There is. It's a two-fold need. One for the power
outages and one to provide power during any blackout or peak power
demands on the island. It's definitely two-fold.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff
before we go to the petitioner? Okay. Is someone here on behalf of
the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I just thought of one staff
question. Bryan, these would operate -- this would be a full-time
substitute for Marco's -- for the Marriott's electricity needs? They
would no longer tap into the Lee County Cooperative at any time?
MR. MILK: This would be just on an on needed or as needed basis
for power outages and during the peak power consumptions for the
island.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have they given you any idea what
percentage of time they would expect them to be operating?
MR. MILK: I think they estimate approximately 160 hours during
the year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Peak times? So we're talking typically
mornings and evenings, not necessarily 2:00 a.m. in the morning.
MR. MILK: That's correct. In other words, they can't go on
line, the way stipulation reads, from 7:00 a.m. to as proposed 8:00
p.m. peak hours, like cold winter mornings, hot summer afternoons.
They can only operate between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. If the power
failed in the evening, then they have that ability to turn the
generator on for the health, safety, and welfare of the people at the
Marriott.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
MR. ROBAU: Good afternoon. For the record my name's Emilio
Robau I'm with RWA, we're an engineering firm and we were called in to
try to address some of the concerns and get the violation essentially
fixed and real quick I'd like to introduce who's here on our team.
Paul Whitten with Pantropic Power who sold the generators to Lee
County Electrical Cooperative. Rich Lutz, which is the chief engineer
for the Marco Marriott is also here. Rick Fuson with Lee County
Electrical Cooperative is here and Mr. Robert Tanner, who's our
acoustic expert is also here to give any testimony if required.
I'm going to get right into the project need justification
because it seems like there is some questions regarding that. If you
can imagine, the Marriott is a very large facility, it's a convention
facility and the other morning they told me they served 1100 people
for breakfast, and if you can imagine the disruption that would occur
if you have a power outage within one of their audio visual
presentations if their ballrooms or in the ballroom or in breakfast,
you can understand why the Marriott thinks that this is an essential
service for them because if the power does go out, they get a lot of
disgruntled customers and they are a very high service oriented
hotel/motel organization, and this helps them out considerably to know
that that power's going to be there no matter what happens to the rest
of the grid on the island.
The second thing that is a benefit -- the second reason for the
project need justification here is the emergency -- I mean, the peak
power generation. What happens is essentially during peak power times
if the Lee County Electric Cooperative can reduce their demand from
their biggest consumer on the island, that there's a savings and that
savings is significant. It's been reported to me at $25,000 a month
and that savings can then be passed on to the rest of the consumers
and the Lee County Electrical Cooperative System.
So, just really quickly, we've been through the Marco Civic
Association, this is all for the project need justification now, and
we've gotten their approval for the project. We gave a similar
presentation that we're giving right here. So the Civic Association
doesn't have a problem with what we're doing.
I'm gonna get into the existing conditions. I'm gonna be real
quick. We've already noted that there's a violation for noise on the
property. I think the readings were 71 and 75 decibels. The current
generators are -- have an enclosure around them, they're a metallic
enclosure, sound attenuation enclosure, but they're unfortunately
placed only 40 feet away from the property line of the adjacent
homeowner, who's having a problem.
The complaints are noise vibration and emissions from the
existing location and we've prepared an existing site plan and a
proposed site plan, which I think you have a copy of in an eight and
half by eleven format.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do.
MR. ROBAU: What we're doing essentially, in order to try to
solve the problem is we're taking generators away from -- they're
currently 40 foot away from the property's location, to 140 feet away
from the property and we're also putting them in between the chiller
structures and the residence and in addition to that, we're
constructing a 13 feet, 7 inch from memory --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me a minute, I think you misspoke
there. You're putting the chiller structure between the generators
and the residence.
MR. ROBAU: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Putting the chiller between
the generators and the adjacent property and we're constructing, a 13
foot, 7 inch wall around the generators that will abut the chiller
structure with sound attenuation measures in the wall itself. The
wall is 13 feet, 7 inches and it will be above the mufflers, so that
the whole unit is going to be enclosed, whereas right now, it's not
enclosed.
So we're putting distance between the property owners and the
units and we're also enclosing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. Are you committing to 55 decibel
maximum at all times of operation?
MR. ROBAU: Mr. Tanner, our expert, has said that that is
possible, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're willing to commit to that as a
standard?
MR. ROBAU: That is the county standard. We're going to commit
to the county standard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the county night time standard.
MR. ROBAU: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm saying is that your information says
you can do it at 55 decibels. Period.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All the time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All the time. Is that correct?
MR. ROBAU: That's what our information says, yes, sir. That's
what our acoustic expert's indicating.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ROBAU: Real quickly, operation hours, 160 hours during the
year, I think is what was calculated in order to figure out the pay
back on this thing to perform on it.
Real quickly, it's about 30 days at about 6 hours or so per day
during the peak times. It's gonna be in the morning when it's very,
very cold or in the afternoon when it's very, very hot and we haven't
had our afternoon rain, similar to Hay. It's also dependent on what's
going on in other parts of the state because they're a cooperative,
they purchase power from other areas.
I'd like to at the end of the public comment period have an
opportunity to discuss this a little further and maybe address some of
the public comments and that's going to be the end of my particular
presentation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This not being a court of law, we don't allow
recross or restatement. If there are questions the board has that you
can answer, we'll certainly request that of you at that time.
MR. ROBAU: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees.
MR. HCNEES: Public speakers, your first would be Don Ross Jr.,
who will be followed by Jim Cornell.
MR. ROSS: Good afternoon. I'm Don Ross, Jr. I live 40 feet
from where the generators are right now. A number of points that need
to be made. These are diesel generators. everybody keeps saying
electric generators, electric generators.
Yes, they generate electricity, but essentially what you have are
diesel truck motors. I mean that's what they sound like when they're
on. In fact, they sound like they're in my kitchen when they're on.
A little bit more background. After I filed the complaint, the
county actually came out to my house with all the windows shut and
tested these things. Mr. Milk was there, and he'll confirm that with
all the windows shut and his keys on the coffee table, he was able to
put his hand on the wall, the wall vibrated. He was able to put his
hand on the window, the window vibrated and his keys vibrated.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ross, you understand that they were in
violation, and we're not talking about the existing conditions. We're
talking about future conditions.
MR. ROSS: This leads into the future condition.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think we'll stipulate that there was a
violation, that it was unacceptable, obviously, or we wouldn't have
issued the violation.
MR. ROSS: Okay. The other point that was not brought out. In
January, David Hedrich from the county came out and tested sound
levels. Now, in order to measure, you know, how this was gonna be at
55 all the time, which I believe was your question, David Hedrich when
he measured it at my property line, measured it at 59 decibels during
the day without turning any generators on whatsoever, so, I mean, I
don't know how they're going to drop the existing cooling powers down
four decibels without putting any additional wall around those cooling
towers.
Secondly, I have a Mr. Jim Cornell, who has actually worked on
cooling towers, he's a sound expert and he had agreed to come here
this morning. He's telling me that the vibration is a real concern,
and we haven't heard any testimony on the vibration. A low frequency
vibration, which is what you have with diesel motors, carries a long
distance and the simple -- pushing these things away is not going to
deal with the vibration.
Now, I have a two story house. My house is substantially higher
than their 13 foot 7 inch wall. My whole second story, I'll be able
to look out and see these stacks. I'm gonna be in direct line of
sight of what they're putting in these walls.
The vibration, Mr. Cornell, who will speak, travels airborne and
doesn't go down through the ground and up into my house. The
vibration we experience, which was my earlier reference, comes through
the air and will continue to come through the air with the wall being
13 foot 7 inches. My entire second story will vibrate.
Next point is the precedent this will set on the island.
According to the article in the Eagle from January 15th they intend to
run this from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. during the cold hours and 1:00 to
6:00 p.m. in the summer hours. Now that's different than what's in
the executive summary. In the executive summary, I think it's 7:00 to
8:00.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think you can count on the information
presented today is what we're basing our decision on.
MR. ROSS: Okay. My point, though, is that this is the first
step on the island -- this is the first time on the island that you've
had generators proposed for anything other than emergency use, the
very first, and there are a number of other condos and other hotels on
that beach who if they could save money on their electric bills
they'll be next in line.
So whatever is done here today, whatever approval you give, I
think needs to be done in a very careful fashion because it won't be
the last time you see this. It will be a real problem.
Now, the recommendation that the planning board made was that
these be in a totally enclosed building to mitigate sound vibration
and odor impact. Now all we've heard is Mr. Milk, who says he is not
an expert on this say, "well, it was very loud over at Naples
Community Hospital."
My sound expert is gonna say that you can put it in a totally
enclosed structure and with proper mufflers totally eliminate the
noise, at least get it down where it won't be a problem.
The petitioners don't want to do that. We haven't heard any
testimony on why they're not willing to follow the recommendation of
the planning board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How about the vibrations? What effect
would that have on the enclosed structure?
MR. ROSS: It would, by breaking the line of sight, you can ask
Mr. Cornell this, that should stop the vibration.
Now, what the planning board had asked for was that it be totally
enclosed, and I don't remember the gentleman's name on the planning
board, but there was at least one member of the planning board with
substantial experience with these types of devices, and he's the one
who was doing a lot of the talking, but he was saying if you put it in
a totally enclosed structure, Mr. Cornell will confirm this, you can
fix it, so that you don't hear this noise and that the vibration is
taken care of.
What they've proposed does nothing for the vibration of my second
story, and my final point would be what if it doesn't work, and this
has been my family house for 20 years. If it doesn't work, I can't
sell the house. It makes my house vibrate and it's diesel trucks. I
mean, that's what it sounds like. I mean, electric generators sound
nice, but it's diesel. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question while other people are coming up
maybe for staff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tell you what, can we get through the
speakers, 'cause I have a feeling we're going to get deluged with
information anyway. Let's take a five-minute break.
(Whereupon, a break was had.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reconvene the meeting. We were in the area of
public speakers on this item, so, Mr. HcNees, let's continue with
that.
You have two more. Jim Cornell will be followed by
HR. HCNEES:
Don Ross, St.
HR. ROSS:
HR. HCNEES:
HR. ROSS:
I'm sorry. You called Don Ross, St.?
I called Jim Cornell and Don Ross, St.
I'll speak first. For the record, my name is Don
Ross, St., I unfortunately sold this house to my son.
Several points I want to talk about. The Marriott Hotel, first
off, is, as we all know, 24 years old. It has not suffered from lack
of visitors or customers. They've doubled in size, and I believe
tripled in size since I moved into that house in August of '74.
There's never been a need, you see, an absolute positive need to set
up a generating plant to my knowledge. If it did exist from a point
of an emergency or a true necessity, they have 13 and a half acres of
land, approximately, eight to eight and a half acres of parking lot.
Many, many other spots that they could put this in.
When I first went over to my son's home and I saw these units in
place, I went up to Lee County's office and spoke with Bill
Hetherington, who is vice president in charge of engineering, if I
have his title correctly, and basically asked what are these, what are
they doing there. He said, Don, first off, understand, Marriott is
our largest customer. This is a win/win situation for the Marriott
and for Lee County. Marriott's gonna save money on their electric
bill, that's the necessity I'm reading in here. They're gonna save
money on the power they use and he says and the overage, we keep. He
says it's a win/win deal. I said, well, it's a win/win for the two
big guys and a kick in the pants for the little people. I said what
you're forgetting is all the little people, we're all owners of Lee
County and we're not even being considered in this situation.
As my son mentioned, the generators are diesel powered. The
stacks on the property are a minimum 12 inches in diameter, unlike
what he said -- a diesel truck, you're probably looking at about 20,
30 trucks sitting out in your backyard, 30 feet away, roaring away.
That's wrong.
The other thing that upset me here today, and I guess I'm easily
upset, is their expert, Robert Tanner, was hired by myself when we had
a problem. I paid him 1,000 bucks for this thing to get in front of
you, to come down and take a reading, who at that time told me how the
just the cooling tower, forget the diesel plants, was really
outrageous, was terrible and on the strength of his report and his
findings and all the letters of recommendation that he gave to me,
that made me believe in A, the man's intelligence, and his reputation,
his standings in the community, that I had the right guy. I doubt
that today.
If what he -- if what I paid him for in 1992 was so terrible, how
now with the wave of a magic wand and everything I hear is, I assume
this, I assume this, and maybe this and maybe that, by doubling or
tripling or quadrupling the noise situation, closer now to my son's
home within 30 feet or 40 feet from the back of the house, is gonna be
okay.
If I was still there, I'd be in a terrible, terrible position.
I'm an acute asthmatic, smoke, stress, as we all read, everybody's got
a problem, but that's my problem. One of Don's sons has a respiratory
problem. To look at that black smoke pouring out of there, which
everybody seems to dance around and say this is okay because Marriott
wants to save a buck, and to paint this any way you want is wrong.
It's also wrong of the Marriott or Lee County, who under the
so-called justified permit, they took out a building permit to do a
thousand dollars' worth of electrical work and rolled in a million
dollar complex with no plans submitted, nobody asked, just put it in
place and turned it on, because they are Lee County and the Marriott,
that's wrong.
If I put an addition on without your okay, I'll be told to take
it down. I built a fence in my backyard, I had to go through all
kinds of -- I had to go to the planning board, I had to come up before
anybody to build a six foot fence between me and that parking lot and
they can roll in a million dollar ugly monster and stick it out there
and just say tough, and not even get a slap on the hand.
When I brought Bryan, and Bob Mulhere and everybody else up to
the site, everybody's reaction was, "My God, this is outrageous. How
could they do this." Who the hell --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ross, you need to wrap your comment up.
MR. ROSS: Who do they think they are? And now they've gone all
the way from, "we're gonna have them take it out," "we're gonna have
them move it someplace else on there that makes more sense" to "How
can we make it okay for Lee County"? "how can we make it all right
for Lee County?" That's not fair.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ross, your time's expired, sir.
MR. ROSS: My times expired. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, I'm sorry. Each speaker is allotted five
minutes.
MR. ROSS: Just I hope you do the job the way you should. That's
all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one question for Mr. Ross. Mr.
Ross, there's just a little confusion and I want to be sure I
understand it, Mr. Tanner's letter to you.
MR. ROSS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The second and third pages say that they
have to do with measuring the air conditioning machinery at the
Marriott, but the cover letter says something about Sonesta Harbor
Resort and Spa.
MR. ROSS: Oh, he gave me some other letters of recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those are credentials.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. But it --
MR. ROSS: This diagram, excuse me, shows the plan as it now
exists. The yellow dot I put in is where now these new power plants
sit.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because what he told you in this letter is
that without this facility, just with what's currently there, the
cooling building, it says during the night the allowable level is
vastly exceeded.
MR. ROSS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's real interesting to me. I just
wanted to be sure I understood it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Next.
MR. HCNEES: Jim Cornell is your final speaker.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon. Jim Cornell, Cornell and Balancing
Company. I'm the president of the company. We have offices in Fort
Lauderdale and Fort Myers. Our primary business is vibration testing,
dynamic balancing service and we also do sound testing.
The first I heard of this problem was last Friday when Mr. Ross
called and over the phone described what he was experiencing and the
testing that he had observed up to that point. When he sent me the
packet of information, I had some reaction and some notes I've taken,
and I'd like to read them to you.
In the first place, I believe it's very important to understand
that the sound that is produced by these large diesel engines has very
intense, relatively low frequency exhaust pressure pulsations. They
all describe them as truck sounds. The selection of a muffler is very
important when a diesel engine's -- diesel engine powered machine is
used in a residential neighborhood. We intend to test the sound when
possible for intensity and pure tone components at a future time.
The barrier wall that they're describing must be quite a bit
taller than the exhaust discharge and we have a very high quality
acoustical lining in order to be helpful in reducing sound to the
nearby residence.
I question whether the wall is tall enough that is proposed to be
effective. I suggest that if you allow these machines to be used in a
residential area, they must be supplied with a muffler system and an
enclosure where the sound produced will not exceed 55 DBA at 50 feet.
I believe presently it's 72 to 75 by your people's readings.
This very intense low frequency sound can travel long distances
and cause the kind of vibration problem described by Mr. Ross.
As I said, I will continue to test and inspect the diesel
generator package in the best way available and suggest ways to reduce
sound. Appreciate that. Is there any questions?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Mr. Ross brought up the issue of
vibration to his second story. If the wall height is raised to a
certain elevation, do you think that problem would go away for the
most part?
MR. CORNELL: I asked the question with the elevation right now
and what the exhaust discharge is in relation to the wall and we don't
know that number right now, but if there's a line of sight from a
discharged exhaust to his windows, he'll still hear it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So in your opinion, the wall height has to
exceed the height of the discharge? MR. CORNELL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any more questions?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Staff question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, sir. Question for you, Mr.
Milk.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the beginning of your presentation, you
said something about an express permit, that this was initially
located via an express permit.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you tell me more about that? I
don't understand that.
MR. MILK: Well, Lee County Cooperative and the Marriott came in
for an electrical permit to do some electrical modifications to the --
they pulled a permit for some electrical hook ups. It wasn't by any
means enough to do what they did on-site.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a permit violation here for a
building permit that was not tagged?
MR. MILK: There's a couple. There's a permit violation, a site
development plan process violation and a conditional use violation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's three violations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a noise violation.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have they been cited on all of those?
MR. MILK: Well, they have and that's why we're here today. In
other words, it's a combination of things. The inadequate building
permits, inadequate public hearings, and inadequate site development
plan for the location of the generators.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me, just so I understand this, they got a
permit to do minor electrical work, for the most part? MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They turned around and put significant
electrical work on-site, plus physical improvements without a permit?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. They -- the contractor who is
responsible for that did not receive those permits, was that
contractor cited and taken to the Code Enforcement Board? MR. MILK: At this point, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any anticipation of that happening?
MR. MILK: It depends on what the consent of this board is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have this little thing about doing work
without permits.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No kidding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And regardless of what the decision is on this
today, I will ask that the motion include a full investigation as to
the work that was done without a permit, and that issue be taken to
the Code Enforcement Board for disposition.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The contractor's licensing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, the Contractor's Licensing Board,
because somebody needs to have their fingers shut in the door. That's
just wrong.
MR. MILK: Quite frankly, I'm not sure who the contractor was or
what he contracted for at that point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Doesn't matter.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, neither am I, but today's public hearing
does not excuse that kind of work by a contractor who works in this
area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got to say, I don't like how this got
permitted or didn't get permitted. I don't like the idea of the
imposition of this on, you know -- let me see what page it is. Page
six of our agenda packet shows, you know, that this is property across
the street from the Marriott. If there's no impact to this, there's a
lot of vacant land on the gulf side of the street. Put it over there,
but more importantly, I think this is a bad idea to have generators
for anything other than emergency use.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think this was a dupe. This is a noxious
use, that had they pulled a building permit the adjacent property
owners would have been notified and it would have been posted on-site.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There was no permit pulled. Now what they're
asking for is a modification to a noxious use that they didn't obtain
a permit for at the outset.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the petitioners here today may not be
responsible for it, but whoever is needs to answer for it, whether it
be the Marriott, the contractor, or both.
There is no way that I can support a modification to a noxious
use that was an end run around the county's permitting process and
that's clearly what this is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even if it was unintentional, I don't care.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I make a motion to deny the request.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I need to close the public hearing. I'm not
sure I did that. Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to deny based on?
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Am I allowed to speak at all?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Unless you were a registered speaker.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I'm a witness.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you were not asked to speak by your
team, sir. The public hearing has been closed. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to make a couple of comments.
I agree with your motion. I'm going to vote in favor of the motion to
deny. I don't think it was, the whole thing unfolded properly.
I want to say I disagree with your comment, though, that the use
in general, if it were placed in a proper location is necessarily bad
for a couple of reasons, and if -- if you can reduce demand during
those peak services. The service delivered to John Q. Public, to the
little guy, can be improved. The cost can actually be a savings to
them as well, and certainly, I could agree with them that there's a
health safety issue if you have a power outage and they can actually
provide power.
However, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the site, if it's
not at all a problem, then they should site it on the gulf side.
There is certainly adequate space for it and it does appear that the
way this whole thing was an end run around the general process, so I
agree with you on all of those points.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think a lot of the complaints we got today
would have been the same complaints had a permit been requested in
that area and posted, and we would have had the opportunity to look at
sound attenuation at the outset, instead of coming in after the fact
to design something that really shouldn't exist there in the first
place in the manner it does.
So, I think all of that combined, I think there is an
incompatibility with the fact that it's this close to a residential
area and there's gonna have to be a lot more work on sound attenuation
in these type of cases than the application that was presented here
today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd just like to say for the record
that my motion is based on those findings that both of you have just
described in addition to the others we've discussed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Hulhere?
MR. HULHERE: For the record, Bob Hulhere, planning manager. I
just wanted to let you know they were, in fact, red tagged when we
were -- when we became aware of the violation they were red tagged and
that's how they've come to the process at this point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As a result of this, and we'll let this vote
go through, but as a result of if this is denied, I think it's at
least my expectation, and I'll ask the balance of the board, that it
go through the proper contractor licensing or code enforcement,
whichever is the proper avenue --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or both.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- for the actions that were taken without
permits.
MR. HULHERE: That will happen and they'll be given a certain
period of time to remove the violation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is
there further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries five to zero, petition is denied.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 97-258 TO NULLIFY AND HAKE VOID THE APPROVED RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT AND SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT (PETITION SPA-95-1/RESOLUTION
95-330) BETWEEN TEO'S RESTAURANT AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
WHICH ALLOWS FOR OFF-SITE SHARED PARKING LOCATED ON LOT 21, J & C
INDUSTRIAL PARK, ADJACENT TO TEO'S RESTAURANT IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP
49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Item 13(A)(3), resolution to nullify and make void the approved
restrictive covenant for shared parking agreement between Teo's and
the BBC.
I think this needs to be framed a little bit in that there are a
couple of issues here, one is a covenant placed on the property
through the county --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you ask Mr. Tanner and Mr. Ross
to have their discussion outside?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Folks, if I could you to -- if you're gonna
have a discussion to do so in the hallway. Thank you.
Item 13(A)(3), there are a couple of issues here. Hr. Hulhere,
would you please do the board the favor of framing those issues which
are pertinent to today's discussion and not the contract dispute
between the two.
MR. HULHERE: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, you will, I'm sure,
hear some testimony from both sides as to who did or didn't allow
certain things to take place.
The point of concern from the staff is that certain improvements
have not taken place and, in fact, it looks as though they're not
going to take place. Although there was a reasonable period of time
in which they should have in exchange for the board's granting of the
shared parking petition.
In fact, the parking, to support the intensity of the business is
no longer available to the business owner, and so, your staff's
recommendation is that this agreement become -- be made null and void
and whether or not there are other opportunities, certainly there are
other opportunities to resolve the issue from the perspective of the
business owner, they can certainly explore other adjacent properties
for a shared parking petition, in which case that would need to come
before the board again.
I think the petitioner in discussions with staff has indicated
that while our code requires the parking, the actual intensity or use
of the business does not require the additional parking and from my
perspective or from the staff's perspective that argument could be
made either through a variance or through an additional shared parking
petition.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, what you're saying is that there was a
shared parking agreement based on the parking requirement that the
county has for this type of use.
MR. HULHERE: Right. In order for the property owner to secure a
certain type of beverage license, which allows for the dispensing of
alcoholic beverages for on premise consumption, in conjunction with
the primary purpose, which is food, preparation and dispensing food.
So you need a hundred -- according to the state you need a 150 seats
for that. The way the county gets involved is for 150 seats, you need
75 parking spaces.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We don't have any complaints from
adjacent property owners on parking issues? MR. HULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: However, we can't just void a parking
agreement than have a nonconforming use. There's got to be a remedial
effort --
MR. HULHERE: For example, it's certainly within the powers of
the board to suggest that this be resolved within a certain period of
time, whether that be 90 days or something, that we would bring back
an alternative to either, you know, one alternative is certainly a
variance, but that would be the applicant's responsibility to provide
enough information to the staff, which we could then bring to the
board to indicate that parking's not necessary and the board can
reduce the parking requirement.
Second option would be to find an additional piece of property in
which they could share or locate off-site parking, which they would
also have to come through the staff back to you for approval. Either
one of those remedies would probably take in the neighborhood of 90
days.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's the one issue. The second
issue, I believe, is the restrictive covenant placed on the property.
If we were to nullify the shared parking agreement, the window of
remedy available to the petitioner, does that also remove the
restrictive covenant?
MR. HULHERE: We would have to file and I believe that the
resolution includes the proper format so that it can be recorded and
that would remove the cloud from the title.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question about that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just about the process, it seems, if I
understand the facts correctly, the process seems wrong to me, and
that is --
MR. HULHERE: You are correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. The petition -- if property owner B
comes in and says, Dear County Commission, please allow me to put a
restrictive covenant on property owner A and we'll record it, without
property owner A's permission, that's --
MR. HULHERE: I think that's where the problem occurred. We do,
just for your information, we do have a lease that's signed by
property owner A and B. So from the staff's perspective, we knew that
there was a lease signed and that was part of the exhibit and approval
of the board, but you're absolutely correct. The document was not in
the correct format and should have been signed by property owner A as
well, but that has been corrected and will be corrected in the future.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, in essence, a covenant was placed
without the sign off by the property owner, which is procedurally
improper for us to do; is that a fair statement?
MR. WEIGEL: That's a fair statement, and I would suggest that
all parties testifying or speaking might be sworn in, as this goes
forward, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and do that, then I
think we may have a middle ground. If I could ask, why don't we go
ahead, and everyone who's speaking on this item, please stand and
raise your right hand. Madam court reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We're going to take a recess just long
enough to change court reporters and then we'll reconvene.
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll reconvene the board meeting for today.
We are on item 13(A)(3). I know I had everybody sworn in.
I know that there is -- there's people that are just chomping at
the bit to stand up and say their piece about this, but it sounds like
there are two things that could probably resolve everyone's situation.
We have one property owner looking for a covenant be removed that
we say we could have done better in placing it there if it needed to
be done, and we have a second that says if you give us time to find
another solution, we can do it, and I've had discussions with both.
I'll base my decision on the information presented today, but if
I've stated that correctly, I see a real obvious solution here that
would bring this item back in a period not to exceed 30 days to
determine a parking solution for Teo's restaurant and we go ahead and
lift the covenant.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I think the covenant ought to be
lifted now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed, not pending that 30 days, but that we
give Teo's restaurant a window of 30 days to develop a solution to the
parking problem?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm trying to see a problem with that.
MR. HULHERE: That resolution can be recorded -- once it's signed
by the chairman, can be recorded immediately. That will remove the
cloud on the title.
Hay I just get one clarification?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You certainly may.
MR. HULHERE: The 30 days would be for them to submit. We have,
obviously, advertising, but if they would submit to the staff some --
some resolution that we could then review and process, it may be a
little bit longer before we get that back to you because of the
advertising.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not as concerned with that as I am finally
reconciling the parking situation so that if all of a sudden they
start getting a band on Wednesday night and getting a crowd there, we
don't start getting parking problems there. I want the parking issue
resolved, and I hope it's a good band.
Are there any other questions of staff?
Okay. I put that on the table because we have at least two
attorneys that want to speak on this. So if you want to talk us out
of that as a direction, be my guest.
Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: Your first registered speaker is John Cardillo.
He'll be followed by Ron Stetler.
MR. CARDILLO: Good afternoon. I'm John Cardillo for the Teo's
Restaurant, and I don't have a problem with that, at all.
It's one o'clock. Teo's makes the best hot dogs in town. I
would suggest that we take this issue and resolve it with these little
hot dogs.
We are not opposed to Mr. Carini's correcting or resolving that
issue. The issue is the latter, and I don't have a problem with what
Commissioner Hancock has suggested at this time.
If we get into it later on, I do have a stack of things I would
like to say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You would like to threaten us with a lot of
verbosity?
MR. CARDILLO: No threats.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cardillo.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Stetler, and your last speaker would be Joe
Dimassimo.
MR. STETLER: If the consensus of the board is -- excuse me. I'm
Ron Stetler. I represent Mr. Carini.
If the consensus of the board is to remove the deed restriction
right now, then that's -- that's fine with us. That's all we came
for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Cardillo, you had --
MR. CARDILLO: Yeah, I wanted to make sure -- I wanted to make
sure that by our not objecting to his deed restriction, because I
never thought there should have been a deed restriction in the first
place. These things are generally done by shared parking agreements
and -- which we have.
We do not concede for a moment that it is a violation on our own
fault, or that it's not in effect, but that Mr. Carini does whatever
he has to do with his property. We don't want to hold up his sale of
the property.
That's -- I think that's what I want to make sure and that
we have so many days in which to come back with -- we do not want to
be in violation ourselves or lose our right to park or to operate, but
agree with him, yes.
I thank you, Commissioner Norris.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we're in concert there.
Next speaker?
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Dimassimo.
MR. CARDILLO: Mr. Dimassimo waives his right to speak.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion that we immediately remove
the resolution or record a resolution to terminate the deed
restriction that the county placed on the property, and that we give
30 days for the restaurant owner to apply for a solution to the
parking dilemma he finds himself in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But we are today not nullifying the
parking agreement until we get the resolution back. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's correct.
MR. HULHERE: In that case, I would have to ask the county
attorney's help to revise the resolution, which does call for
nullification, and simply defer that for 30 days, but somehow we need
to also clear that title.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern -- Mr. Weigel, help me with this.
If we nullify the shared parking agreement -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- now we have a nonconforming use.
MR. WEIGEL: True.
MS. HAC'KIE: But we're giving them a 30 day window to cure their
nonconforming.
MR. WEIGEL: I think we're best served to get rid of it all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To nullify the parking agreement?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then let it be known that we have a 30 day
window in which --
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in which we have a nonconforming use that
must be reconciled for the operation of Teo's?
MR. WEIGEL: Our code applies, and the procedures available to
rectify the problems exist for the owner and they have been properly
notified through the hearing today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just not sure that's what we told Mr.
Cardillo we were doing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The result is no different in that Teo's still
has to come back with a parking arrangement that is acceptable to this
board one way or the other.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question for me is if we nullify the
parking agreement today, I don't know that that makes any difference
because we have every intention of doing it down the road.
Operationally, I don't think it matters.
MR. HULHERE: We would -- after 30 days, June 27th, we would
notify Code Enforcement to take the appropriate action, so I think
that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah, I --
MR. WEIGEL: I know here, again, the attorneys are gathering.
Mr. Stetler also wants to be clear --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I'm trying to avoid.
MR. WEIGEL: -- as to what the board is intending to do today and
I think he may have a question in regard to this agreement continuing
to exist.
The agreement itself addresses the adjacent property and I think
that's maybe the concern Mr. Stetler has, that he wants that property,
both by the agreement and that restrictive covenant that was recorded,
to no longer refer to the adjacent property, the Carini property. You speak. I can't speak for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to reopen the public hearing because
we've got a lack of clarity here.
Mr. Hulhere, the resolution you've prepared does two things. It
removes the approved restrictive covenant and nullifies the shared
parking agreement?
MR. HULHERE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm proposing that we approve that
resolution and give the petitioner a 30 day grace period to come up
with another shared parking agreement or some other arrangement to
solve his parking problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the intent of the motion. Okay.
Mr. Stetler.
MR. STETLER: I'm a little unclear in that the -- the document
itself is titled, Restrictive Covenant and Shared Parking Agreement.
They are part and parcel. They are one and the same, and the
restrictions are contained in the shared parking agreement. So if you
remove the ordinance or resolution and not the restrictive covenant
and shared parking agreement, we can't consummate our sale.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My motion was to do both.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You, right now, don't have an issue.
MR. STETLER: Good.
MS. HAC'KIE: Mr. Cardillo does.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question is, Mr. Cardillo, is that
direction consistent and acceptable to you at this time?
MR. CARDILLO: I cannot concede that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CARDILLO: And the reason is, I think -- I don't think it is
this board's determination. It may be that they can rule whether or
not that shared parking agreement is valid or invalid as it is. It
may end up being a matter for a judge to decide, but as far as the
restrictive covenant agreement, I think that they can remove that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The shared parking agreement that I'm
referring to in my motion, Mr. Cardillo, is the one on pages six
through eight of our agenda packet, and thatws a shared parking
agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and Joe Di
somebody.
MR. CARDILLO: Joe Dimassimo is here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think the difference is a question of
invalidating versus nullifying. We do have the authority to nullify a
shared parking agreement because we had the authority to approve it.
MR. CARDILLO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So wewre not making a legal determination of
validity or invalid. We are simply nullifying it, saying it does not
exist and you have 30 days to come up with plan B. We do have that
authority.
Whether or not itws acceptable to you is a whole other issue.
MR. CARDILLO: Well, if I may, therews a shared parking lease that
was signed by Mr. Carini and Mr. Dimassimo that is -- may be a part of
your package.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: It is. Itls pages 13 and 14.
MR. CARDILLO: And thatls an agreement between the two of them,
right.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: And Iim out of that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would the board -- that has nothing to do with
this board. That is between your client and Mr. Stetlerls client
because this board did not sign on that contract.
MR. CARDILLO: Correct. So -- well, my position is that Mr.
Dimassimo still has whatever rights there are to a shared parking
lease.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then you can make that argument in a court of
law, but thatls not for us to decide.
MR. CARDILLO: Right. Thatls -- well, I think thatls what I was
saying.
Now, with respect to the shared parking -- the restrictive
covenant and shared parking agreement, I agree that the County
Commission can --
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Thatls --
MR. CARDILLO: -- can rule on that. However, Iim suggesting that
they do not rule on the merits of Mr. Dimassimols rights with respect
to operating his business regarding parking, even if they do give Mr.
Carini the relief that he seeks for the purposes of selling his
business.
Our position has been that the business -- the first complaint,
which came about by a letter from Mr. Stetler, was that there was an
objection that the county had a right to prevent him from selling his
business. We said we donlt have any qualms with who you sell that
business to, and therefore -- in fact, I said to Mrs. Student, the
county can eliminate asking us, in fact, the county can eliminate or
withdraw as far as welre concerned, any right of approval as to who
gets -- who he can sell his business to.
But as far as affecting our rights to park or to operate our
business, we would object to that. So they can go sell it and whoever
buys it, buys it subject to whatever the lease is.
I think it would take some substantive hearing to know whether or
not Mr. Dimassimo violated any of these rights, and I donlt want to
stipulate to that part.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Mr. Cardillo, Iim not sure that -- maybe
we havenlt been clear enough on this direction.
We are not, by todayls action, affecting Mr. Dimassimols ability
to operate his business in the interim. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For 30 days.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we're saying is in 30 days, we would like
to see a resolution of this matter that does not involve Mr. Carini's
lot. If, at that time, we do not see an acceptable resolution, and
decide to terminate or to not have anything, then the argument you're
making now is pertinent.
MR. CARDILLO: Then we can have a hearing of some nature to go
over whatever it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's correct.
MR. CARDILLO: I think that's appropriate, Mr. Dimassimo.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At this point, we have all the faith in the
world that you, in your infinite abilities, will find an agreement
that is acceptable to your client and this board, Mr. Cardillo.
MR. CARDILLO: Thank you. I hope I can do that in 30 days. If I
am not able to do that in 30 days, that is, have a plan, given the
schedule that I have advised the chairman of, I may need a couple
weeks after that or --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, we ask you to work with our staff. We
set an initial 30-day window and we'll see something from you in that
time frame.
MR. CARDILLO: Fine. Thank you.
MR. STETLER: Hay I put something real quick of record? Just two
sentences.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Stetler, make it quick, because
we're in a hurry here.
MR. STETLER: Okay. The Land Development Code, Section 2.3.5(2)
subparagraphs 3 and 4 indicate that the notarized signature of the
landowner, in this case Mr. Carini, must be attached to the shared
parking agreement and the deed restriction. And also at an earlier --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Stetler, you are arguing the wrong
issue.
MR. STETLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. STETLER: I just want to get that on the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you did for absolutely no worth, because
we don't decide that.
The public hearing is closed. No, you may not, Mr. Carini. We
are moving right along.
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I already made one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a
second to the motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is seconded. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My mom always told me when you get what you
want, leave.
Item #14A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATION
Okay. We're to Board of County Commissioners communications.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ironically, during our break, I
glanced at my mailbox and what came in over the weekend was a letter
from Services for Seniors. They filed an official grievance with
Community Transportation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Their timing is uncanny.
I have nothing.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Miss Filson, are we allowed to go?
Thank you very much. We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine
and carried 5/0, with the exception of Item #16A2 approved 4/0
(Commissioner Mac'Kie abstained), that the following items under the
Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "GALL BOULEVARD
EXTENSION"
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 97-252 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LEXINGTON AT LONE
OAK, UNIT TWO"
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 97-253 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "WILLOUGHBY PINES"
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 97-254 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "FREEDOM SQUARE"
Item #16B1
BID NO. 97-2657, "PURCHASE OF WELL POINT SYSTEM", AWARDED TO COMPLETE
DEWATERING & WELLPOINTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,900.00
Item #1682 - This item has been deleted
Item #1683
APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. FOR
MODIFICATIONS TO THE EAST NAPLES PARK SKATEBOARD FACILITY - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6,000.00
Item #1684
APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. 97-2642 WITH MASTERS
GROUP, INC. FOR CLAM PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING - IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$57,546.08
Item #1685
APPROVAL OF A REFUND OF ROAD IMPACT FEES IN THE A_MOUNT OF $73,186.00
FOR THE KENSINGTON GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB AS A REIMBURSEMENT FOR PINE
RIDGE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DONATION
Item #1686
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
(CCWSD) FUNDS - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $7,600,000.00
Item #1687
APPROVAL OF ROYAL COVE SEWER ASSESSMENT PROJECT FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
Item #16C1
FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED; AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR A FOOD CONCESSION AT THE
IHMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX
Item #16C2
APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF THE HEDICAID WAIVER PROGRAM RE-ENROLLMENT
FORM AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
Item #16D1
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH SPILLIS CANDELA AND
PARTNERS, INC., FOR THE MASTER PLANNING OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND
SPACE (RFP #97-2658)
Item #16D2
DECLARE CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE A SALE
OF THE SURPLUS PROPERTY
Item #16D3
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH AMENDING COUNTY ORDINANCE NUMBER 93-65 TO
REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE STATUTES - STAFF TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING
Item #16D4
APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF THE SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY
AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT
FEES
Item #16D5
APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF THE SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIENS
Item #16D6
APPROVAL OF A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AND INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
FOR PROPERTY, LIABILITY AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE BROKERAGE
SERVICES - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $101,300.00
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 97-259, 97-270 & 97-271
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S
OFFICE
Item #1662
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1663
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:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:20 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
BY SHERRIE RADIN AND KAYE GRAY, RPR