BCC Minutes 10/14/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
October 14, 1997
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 9:08 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Barbara B. Berry
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. We are going to call to order
the Board of County Commissioners' meeting for today, October 14th.
Is Reverend Rengstorff here? Good morning, again, sir. Reverend
Rengstorff with the Son-Rise Christian Church is here with an
invocation this morning. If I could ask for your invocation, we'll
follow that with Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
REVEREND RENGSTORFF: I'd like to begin this morning with King
David's prayer of praise that's recorded in the eighth Psalms of the
Holy Bible.
Oh, Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth.
You've set your glory above the heavens. From the lips of children
and infants you have ordained praise because of your enemies, to
silence the foe and the avenger. When I consider your heavens, the
work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you've set in
place, what is mine -- man that you are mindful of him, the son of man
that you care for him. You made him a little lower than the heavenly
beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over
the works of your hands. You put everything under his feet; all
flocks and herds and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air and
the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the sea. Oh, Lord,
our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth.
Heavenly Father, in whom we live and move and have our being, so
guide and govern us by your holy spirit that in all the cares and
occupations of our daily life that we may never forget you, but
remember that we are always walking in your sight.
Father, today we just ask that you give us the wisdom to make
decisions that are in accordance with your will for us. May each of
us here today always be serving you as caretakers of your creation in
the way you will and not as we may selfishly choose. Rid of us -- rid
of us any selfishness that we may have in our hearts that we may serve
you and others of this community with your perfect guidance and your
perfect wisdom.
In Jesus' holy name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Rengstorff, thank you for taking the
time to be with us this morning. We certainly appreciate it. Good morning, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What does the line-up look like today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, this morning, we have four items to
change on your agenda. The first is to add Item 5(A) which is a
proclamation designating October 1997 as domestic violence awareness
month.
The second is to add Item 5(C) which is a presentation of a check
to the Board of County Commissioners by the Collier County Tax
Collector. You probably --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'd like to add as many of those as possible.
MR. FERNANDEZ: You won't object to that one, I wouldn't think.
The next is to add Item 8(C)1 which is to approve the request to
utilize reserve funds for ramps at the East Naples Skate Park Facility
and daser boards at Veterans Community Park, staff request.
Final item is to continue Item 12(B)l to October the 21st, 1997
meeting. That is Petition PUD 97-9, the Club Estates for fezone from
"A" to PUD for the project titled the Club Estates PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And -- so, there was one more that we have in
additional executive summary -- oh, that is the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I covered it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. That's for the ramps, okay.
Okay. Anything additional?
Seeing none, Commissioner Mac'Kie, anything to add?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One change under Item 10, Board of
County Commissioners, if we could make it 10(B), and that would be
discussion of possible action on our public hearings scheduled for
Wednesday night, December 3rd. I want to discuss changing that to
Tuesday night, December 2nd. I understand at least a couple of
commissioners may have a conflict on the 3rd. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At least this one may.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would probably be why you are bringing it
up, wouldn't it? Just kind of ventured a guess.
Two items; one is I have something to update you on from the
Florida Association of Counties which will be of financial benefit
accruing to our taxpayers due to their work that far exceeds probably
what we've paid in dues over the last ten years, and the second thing
is we may have a continuation, and we're waiting to hear specifically,
we may have a continuation of the Lely guardhouse issue today, but we
are going to wait until we get to it to determine if that has -- is
required or not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, your item will be under
14 (A) ?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, mine will not be -- it will be under just
board communications.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's an update from FACO?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, 15(A), so to speak, under board
communications.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask why we may continue that?
It won't break my heart if we do, but why will it be continued?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can have the discussion once or twice, but
the -- we have communicated with the attorney general's office. There
are some issues we want to resolve with them, and rather than having
the whole discussion twice, I think having it once makes the most
sense, but when we get there, if there is more explanation needed, I'm
sure Mr. Manalich can provide that for us, but we are not ready to
continue it at this time because some folks aren't here -- the other
party is not here, so --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we
accept the agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 AND VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
*** TO approval of minutes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to move the approval of September
23rd's regular meeting minutes and also September 24th's value
adjustment board minutes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Item #5A
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIHING THE HONTH OF OCTOBER, 1997, AS DOHESTIC
VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** We are to proclamations and service
awards. Five A under proclamations, domestic violence awareness
month, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. Thank you for adding that to the
agenda today, and I'd like to ask Vaughn Hart (phonetic) who is the
chairman of the domestic violence council and Captain Gene Brown from
the Sheriff's Office to come forward and accept this proclamation. If
you'll just come right up here and face the camera while I read it,
I'd appreciate it.
WHEREAS, domestic violence is of major public concern for our
state and nation and is now the single most cause of injury to women;
and
WHEREAS, there was 131,152 cases of domestic violence reported in
Florida last year which represents a 9.4 percent increase; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a universal societal problem with
consequences reaching far beyond the realm of the family. Domestic
violence is not a private family matter but is a crime that has
devastating effects on the victims, their children, communities and
the workplace; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence affects people of all ages, races,
social, economic, educational, religious and occupational segments of
society; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence represents a pattern of assault, of
coercive behaviors that will escalate in both frequency and severity
if intervention does not occur. About one in five women victimized by
their spouse or ex-spouse reported that they had been a victim of a
series of at least three assaults in the last six months; and
WHEREAS, in Florida, 20 percent of all reported violent crimes
occur in the home, and one person is killed almost every three days by
a spouse or ex-spouse; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence violates an individual's privacy,
dignity, security and humanity; and
WHEREAS, all persons have a basic right to feel safe from harm at
all times, especially in their homes, schools, communities and during
the conduct of business in the workplace; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence has a direct bearing on productivity,
effectiveness, absenteeism and employee turnovers in the workplace.
The national crime survey estimates that 175,000 days per year are
missed from paid work due to domestic violence. A study conducted by
survey -- by survivors of domestic violence found that abusive
partners harassed 74 percent of employed battered women at work.
Fifty-six percent of the victims reported being late for work at least
five times a month. Twenty-eight percent of the victims had to leave
work early at least five days a month, and 54 percent of the victims
missed at least three full days of work a month; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence contributes to increased health care
costs. The American Medical Association estimates that the cost of
treating domestic violence victims ranges from five to ten billion
dollars each year, and nearly 35 percent of women seeking emergency
room treatment are there for injuries received from an abusive
partner; and
WHEREAS, we have a general duty to provide a work environment
that is safe from all forms of violence, including domestic violence,
for all employees and citizens while in the workplace.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that October 1997 be
designated as domestic violence awareness month. Done and ordered
this 14th day of October, 1997, Board of County Commissioners, Collier
County, Florida, Timothy Hancock, Chairman.
I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion? All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Applause).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Among other things, I think that also has the
record for longest proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A lot of information.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** We are to service awards, recognizing
employees that have significant tenures with Collier County
government, and I'd like to start off with what we call the rookies
with but a mere five years. We are proud to recognize the following
people for five years' service.
The first is Tarcisio Henjivar with Pelican Bay Service Division
for five years. Tarcisio Henjivar.
(Applause).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Also, with five years, the Pelican Bay Service
Division, Manuel Nicto.
(Applause).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Also, with Pelican Bay Service Division for
five years, Leonel Ramirez.
(Applause).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And recognizing for ten years' service with
the water department, Keith Hagero.
(Applause).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did I get the pronunciation halfway correct?
MR. HAGERO: Close.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Balipark.
Item #5Cl
CHECK FOR UNUSED FEES - PRESENTED BY THE TAX COLLECTOR
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is the guy with the money?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our next presentation is from your friendly
tax collector.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Representing the tax collector today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay, representing our friendly tax
collector will be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Love him a lot today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, today we're crazy about you.
MR. HAYNES: Your friendly tax collector sends his apologies for
not being able to be here. He's out of town today.
According to our research, this is the first tax collector's
office in the State of Florida in a county of 200,000 population or
less that has been able to return over three million dollars in unused
fees to their taxpayers.
While I'm here, I want to tell you about a -- a little bit about
our office so you will be apprised of what's happening. We have
several things on our drawing board, and several items we wish to be
able to do and enhance our ability to service the citizens of Collier
County such as an additional office in North Naples, tremendous growth
taking place there; expansion of our Golden Gate facilities, another
tremendous growth; updating our computer system with a PC server
computer system and some software programs.
Now, to the meet of the thing of why I'm here. The total return
for the year 1996 and '97 of unused fees are $3,277,715, and the
Collier County Board of Commissioners' share is $2,962,093, and Mr.
Chairman, here is your check.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
(Applause).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not very often you hold a three million
dollar check. I just -- maybe it happens all the time over there. MR. HAYNES: Lock the door.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's good get out of town money.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, I guess instead of framing this, I ought
to cash it for the county's benefit, but I do want to mention one
thing. A lot of times I'll get phone calls, why doesn't the -- why
doesn't the tax collector cut fees, is he spending too much money, the
vast majority of what the tax collector collects are fees that are set
by the state, and it's through the operation and efficient operation
of his department that this money comes back to the taxpayer every
year.
So, to Guy on behalf of the board and, Claude, to all the
employees at the tax collector's office, thank you. We very much
appreciate it on behalf of the taxpayer.
Mr. Fernandez, you can probably figure out something to do with
that check.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll try to figure it out, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a bit unusual to
have too many platitudes about the tax collector and not be in an
election year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
Item #7A
HICHAEL J. VOLPE, OF TREISER, KOBZA & VOLPE, REQUESTING LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR PROPRETY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 951
AND WHITE BOULEVARD - PETITIONER NOT PRESENT
*** Next item under 7(A), public petition, Hichael Volpe of
Treiser, Kobza & Volpe requesting land use designation for property
located at the intersection of County Road 951 and White Boulevard.
Mr. Volpe, are you here?
Yes, Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for
the record.
I spoke with Mr. Volpe about this site, and it concerns an
amendment to our comp. plan which will be heard in two weeks, and it
was my understanding that he was just going to go ahead and hold that
presentation, because that's what it deals with, in with the comp.
plan amendment and was supposed to make the appropriate arrangements
with the manager's office.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And thank you for that information.
We'll look for him in those two weeks, and for now, with him
being absent, we will just not hear Item 7(A).
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION 97-390, AUTHORIZING A SPEED LIHIT REDUCTION TO THIRTY FIVE
MILES PER HOUR (35 HPH) ON C.R. 846 (IHMOKALEE ROAD) WESTBOUND FROM THE
VICINITY OF COLLIER RESERVE WESTERLY TO S.R. 45 (ROUT U.S. 41) -
ADOPTED
*** We'll go to Item 8(B)(1) under public works, request to
approve a speed limit reduction from 45 to 35 miles per hour for a
section of Immokalee Road.
Good morning, Mr. Kant.
MR. KANT: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Edward
Kant, transportation services department.
This is a, we like to think, a fairly straightforward operational
item. We've had an engineering study performed at this location which
is on the east approach to U.S. 41 on Immokalee Road. There's quite a
bit of congestion up there. The geometry of the area is a slight
reversed curve, and based on the accident experience, we're
recommending a slight reduction in the speed along with some
channelization at one of the median openings, and unless you have some
specific questions, we would ask for your approval of this operational
item.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have one question and one element to
state. It's funny, the accident that was cited in the newspaper, I
was riding with the sheriff's office that day, and we responded to
that accident, and it was one of those things where somebody goes to
pull out, and the person who is giving them the gap says you are
clear, they pull out, and it wasn't clear.
So, some of those accidents were just simply driver error and
mistake, but -- you know, as opposed to a dangerous condition, but I
think it's a situation we need to recognize and need some remedy
anyway.
Mr. Kant --
MR. KANT: It's a little deceptive. It's a little deceptive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- my one question I have is the River Chase
Shopping Center has another way out.
MR. KANT: That's correct. If -- let's see, if you go in off of
the Immokalee Road access to River Chase, you can turn left to go to
the front of the shopping center or you -- it looks -- you can
continue as if you were going to the back and then immediately take a
right and it will bring you right back around to the next access
point, which is where they will eventually have some type of an office
park I'm told.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That rear access point, it gets people far
enough away from the intersection that they don't have traffic backing
up into the exit.
Can we ask River Chase to help us with some signage to encourage
people to use that?
MR. KANT: Yes, that's correct. I've used that several times. I
was under the impression based on the discussion I had with one of the
representatives that they had signed it as well as improved it, but
I'll get back with them and make sure that that -- ask them to please
resign it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have one other concern. The visibility,
all due to our wonderful landscaping of the medians and all those
kinds of things, the visibility is a little difficult. When you come
out to make a left-hand turn, you've got cars that are coming off of
U.S. 41, and they are coming eastbound on Immokalee Road, and you
can't really see that eastbound car until you get right into that
median. They can't see you consequently either, and some of them
think you're not there, and they are proceeding to try and make a turn
into that shopping center.
I, frankly -- that's one reason I don't frequent that shopping
center. It would be convenient for me to do so at times, but I don't
do it. If I do, I go out the north -- or actually, the west entrance,
go up north on U.S. 41, make a U-turn, come back and come through the
intersection on Immokalee Road. It's too dangerous to come out this
other way, and it will get worse as we get into the season.
All due respect to this reduction in speed, I think it's a nice
effort. Do I really think that it's going to be a big benefit, I
don't. I'll support this because it's an effort to try and do
something, but I don't see this as being a big benefit.
MR. KANT: We believe that the combination of the channelization
and the rear road that Mr. Hancock mentioned will assist. Once people
-- and drivers typically take several months to train themselves.
Once people discover that it's there and that it's much easier to go
-- if they want to go east, to come out a little bit further east at
the next access point, that's going to improve things.
One of the -- one of the problems with the speed reduction or I
should say one of the reasons why we are looking at that is that
that's an interesting intersection from the point of view of the fact
that a lot of traffic is coming off of 1-75 and used to traveling at
high speeds. Immokalee Road is one of our better roads in terms of
the way the roadway is laid out and its travel characteristics, its
riding characteristics, but as soon as you cross 41, all of a sudden
it necks down. You're getting into residential area, and what we are
trying to do is we're trying to moderate the speeds coming through
that intersection. It's not so much for the speeds along the segment
as it is once they get into the vicinity of that intersection.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: There is a lot of confusion when you're
westbound and you want to continue onto lllth. People don't
understand that if they're in that right lane, that it doesn't
continue on through, that they are going to have to get over. If they
want to continue, they're going to have to slip over to that left-hand
lane to continue on lllth, and so it's not only at the intersection by
River Chase, it's on the other side of the roadway as well that you
get into a lot of difficulty. People -- you'd think that maybe
they're going to the Wal-Hart shopping center area. In reality,
they're not, but they didn't realize they had to be in this other lane
in order to get there even -- and it is marked. I mean, the signage
is up there, but that doesn't register always.
MR. KANT: Yeah. We've tried to do some aggressive signage, but
you know, there's a point at which drivers have to begin to take
responsibility for their own actions, and we can only -- you know,
whether it's enforcement, whether it's engineering, whatever it is,
there's only so much we can do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's the old saying, you can lead a horse to
water --
MR. KANT: Something like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Valid concerns, but unfortunately, so
much of these errors, as I pointed out, are driver errors that they
simply should have taken more cautions, but we'll -- I think this is a
good step.
Do we have any speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Mr. Chairman, you have one speaker, Vera
Fitzgerald.
MS. FITZGERALD: Since I'm already down here, I might as well
speak. It's Vera Fitzgerald.
I disagree with changing the speed for a quarter of a mile.
Every time I drive along Airport Road, I never know what the speed
limit is. It just constantly changes, and why don't you just leave it
at one speed, a reasonable speed, which is 45 miles an hour.
The road is built to take -- to get someone to go 60 miles an
hour. That's the configuration of it. It's a beautiful, big, wide
open road, and that's why people speed.
I don't think changing it to 35 is going to do one thing other
than leave the average citizen open for a speeding ticket. I do
disagree with changing this just for this little segment of road.
It could help greatly at that intersection if you wouldn't have
right turns on the red light. That has been a problem, but I use
River Chase Shopping Center all of the time. I do all of my shopping
for groceries there, and I don't have a problem. I can see that some
people try to beat traffic. I've watched them do that. Changing the
speed limit isn't going to change anything.
MR. FERNANDEZ: You do have another speaker, Mr. Chairman; Mr.
Gil Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning. For the record, Gil Erlichman. I
reside in East Naples. I'm a registered voter and taxpayer in Collier
County.
I agree with the speaker prior to me. I don't see any reason for
changing the speed limit rather for slowing down the traffic. Traffic
is slow enough as we are coming into the tourist season, and to put a
lower speed limit at that -- in that area is going to tie up traffic a
lot more.
So far as the safety is concerned, Commissioner Berry hit the
nail on the head when she was discussing the medians which -- with the
proliferation of trees and shrubs, et cetera, to cut down the
visibility of an approaching car when you're trying to make a left
turn or going off a lane of traffic approaching from the opposite
direction. I mean, there are many areas throughout the county where
they've planted trees approximately one inch -- one foot apart, and
with these shrubs, you cannot see oncoming traffic, especially at
night or at dusk or in the early morning times.
I don't see any reason for all this decorating and planting of
trees and shrubs in these medians. Just have grass and cut the grass
on a regular basis, and it looks very neat.
You have three traffic lights within one block of each other from
Longboat to Domestic on Airport Road, which -- and the traffic lights
are not sequenized. One light in the middle can be red. The other
could be green. I think the public service department has a lot of
work to do correcting various -- correcting traffic signals and
maintaining the medians properly throughout the county without
lowering the speed limit at this particular area. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
Mr. Kant, what's the speed limit on lllth?
MR. KANT: On lllth?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. KANT: I believe it's 30 miles an hour.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, we go --
MR. KANT: It may be -- I may be --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It may be 35?
MR. KANT: It may be 25. Some of those streets were lowered to
25, but it still may be at 30. I don't know offhand, but I can check.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's really the main reason I'm going to
support this is you have people driving at 45 miles an hour through a
potentially green light, bottlenecking from two lanes down into one in
a short period. I would just assume they see a sign that says 35 and
recognize to themselves that there may be a reason to slow down here.
It makes sense because of the bottleneck if for no other reason, and I
assume you'll check the sight triangles at that intersection and make
sure the landscaping conforms with --
MR. KANT: Yes, we will. We've already had some discussions with
the Collier's Reserve people, and I know they've begun to do a
trimming back, at least along the longitudinal sides of Immokalee
Road, but we'll double check the island work, also.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Other further discussion or a motion on
this matter?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Item -- thank you,
Mr. Kant.
Item #882
REVIEW HEARING FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEH IHPACT FEE
CALCULATION FOR CARLISLE OF NAPLES - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
*** Item 8(B)(2) under public works, review hearing for
alternative water and wastewater system impact fee calculation for
Carlisle of Naples.
Mr. Finn, good morning.
MR. FINN: Good morning, commissioners. Edward Finn, public
works operations director.
We are here to conduct a review hearing for an alternate impact
fee. You may recall that in June, we brought a similar one before you
dealing with adult congregate nursing home facilities. At that time,
we essentially approved a pro rata approach to impact fees where we
pay about 33 percent of a typical EDU.
This is almost precisely the same. The applicant has done some
review work. They are requesting a pro rata impact fee based on 115
gallons per bed versus our average single family home usage of 350
gallons per day. This would result in a per bed fee of about 33
percent of a standard EDU, our Collier County EDU. They're proposing
-- they're proposed fee would be 295.71 for water and 440.29 for
wastewater. The total fee under this approach would be $183,264.
We've reviewed the proposed alternate fee. We've reviewed
historic usage patterns for similar facilities as well as the
standards contained in Florida Administrative Code 10D-6 which
provides standard flow characteristics for this type of institutional
use.
Based on these reviews and the study submitted by Wilson, Miller,
we've concluded that the average per day per bed usage of 115 gallons
a day is a reasonable level of expected usage, and we are proposing a
fee of 33 percent of what a typical fee would be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Finn, in our review, did we look at
specific local institutions and their water usage, whether they be in
the city or county water service area, as opposed to national
standards?
MR. FINN: Yes, sir, we have. The study conducted by Wilson,
Miller indicated averages run from about 56 gallons per day per bed up
to 113 gallons per day per bed, and based on that, we essentially feel
that 115 gallons per day per bed is a reasonable level for this type
of usage.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we included
local information such as Moorings Park and others that are similar
uses. Okay.
MR. FINN: And similar to the one we did in June, we are
proposing a two year monitoring period to monitor the usage to make
sure it stays within the criteria we are talking about today, and if
it exceeds that, we would come back to the petitioner and suggest that
they pay the whole fee or a higher pro rata share, whatever the case
may be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Finn?
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll just mention that if this should turn into a
procedure whereupon the petitioner needs to put on evidence beyond a
hearing, where there may be a potential of mere information of staff
recommendation here, I would suggest that Mr. Finn and others that may
testify be sworn in if it should come to that. We don't have these
often, but I think that this may lend itself to that process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me ask this. Do any board members
have questions or concerns over staff's presentation on this matter?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, are there any speakers registered
on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. In that case, if we are ready for a
motion, I will close the hearing on that, and do we have a motion on
the alternative water and wastewater system impact fee for Carlisle?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Finn, thank you very much.
MR. FINN: Thank you.
Item #8C1
REQUEST TO UTILIZE RESERVE FUNDS FOR RAMPS AT THE EAST NAPLES SKATE
PARK FACILITY AND DASER BOARDS AT VETERANS COHMUNITY PARK - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** The next item is an add on item, Item
8(C)(1), request to utilize reserve funds for ramps, and my
colleagues, you have an executive summary that was put in your packet
this morning for this matter.
Mr. Olliff, good morning and congratulations on a great event.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, and thank you. It did go well.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, a motion to approve the
item.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything else you want to add, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Not a thing, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Another one of your patented fine
presentations.
Do we have any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five-zero. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Manalich -- I saw the false start --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I waited long enough to let him get
the good comments in on the weekend.
Item #9A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE LELY BAREFOOT BEACH GUARDHOUSE
LITIGATION - CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 28, 1997
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Our next item under 9(A), recommendation
for the board to consider proposed settlement agreement regarding the
Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse litigation.
Are we going to continue this item, Mr. Hanalich?
MR. MANALICH: Yeah. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
For the record, Ramiro Manalich.
Yes, that's correct, based on communication received from the
attorney general very late yesterday afternoon. I've spoken with the
parties. Jason Korn from Cummings & Lockwood is the attorney that
represents the property owners in this matter, and the joint
recommendation from our office as well from Mr. Korn is for this
matter to be continued for two weeks to allow the attorney general an
opportunity to comment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the board is aware, although the comments
were received yesterday late, as soon as there was general consensus
on the agreement, the attorney general was copied on the agreement and
asked to comment. So, we have tried to make sure we incorporate the
attorney general as much as is practical in this matter, and this two
week continuation should give ample time to respond to that so that we
can have one last hearing, hopefully, either way, on this matter.
MR. MANALICH: The other item I've discussed with Mr. Korn is
that they've kindly agreed to a 30 day extension until December 3rd
for the county's appeal brief deadline to be extended to accommodate
this development.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions or comments for Mr.
Manalich?
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one. Would it be useful in the
attorney general's deliberations to have some understanding about
whether or not the board as a whole endorses the proposed settlement
agreement or would it be better for them to comment before they know?
MR. MANALICH: I think the way we've been headed here, if you
recall, this matter came to the board after the result in the code
enforcement case.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I recall.
MR. MANALICH: We asked for your direction. You designated Mr.
Hancock as the lead person on this. At this point, based on that
board action, I would say that the procedure would be to incorporate
the attorney general into discussion and then bring that back to you
in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can tell you honestly, my thinking was that
we could do the full blown deal today and have an entire hearing on
this today. If the attorney general modified the agreement in any
way, shape or form, we would come back and do it all over again, and
that's simply what I was trying to avoid. I'd rather everyone -- we
have known quantities out there, know what the attorney general's
concerns are in our deliberations. It may have an impact on your
decision.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to make a lot more sense to
have that be part of our decision making process rather than revisit
-- we've heard this a zillion times, and I'd rather not it be a
zillion and two if we don't have to.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A zillion and one will do, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Can I get a motion for continuation for
two weeks?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A motion we continue the item for two
weeks.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Manalich, Mr. Korn, thank you very much.
MR. MANALICH: Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-391, APPOINTING W. JEFFREY CECIL AND SAM GOODMAN TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COHMISSION - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** The next item under 10(A), appointment of
members to the affordable housing commission.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend Sam
Goodman for one of the slots.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Agreed.
I see Jeffrey Cecil is an attorney in affordable housing
development. That seems to be pretty solid, so I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Mr. Cecil and Mr.
Goodman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Cecil and Mr.
Goodman will both serve on the affordable housing commission.
Item #10B
RESCHEDULING OF LDC HEARING FROH DECEHBER 3, 1997 TO DECEHBER 2, 1997 -
APPROVED
*** Item 10(B), we have a request from Commissioner Constantine
to revisit the date of December 3rd for a board scheduled public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, that's our Wednesday
night hearing. We have the second hearing two weeks later, December
17th.
I have a conflict December 3rd. I really don't want to miss
that. That's our once every six months meeting. I understand there's
also a -- some sort of seminar or gathering that some of the
commissioners may be interested in that begins that Wednesday and goes
through the week, and it just seems if we do our public hearing
Tuesday night, it will not only --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is this your big Christmas blowout at your
house that we can be all --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it's not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Just checking.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That we all are going to attend.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does anyone have --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We all pick an issue out of a hat and
talk about it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Vote.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And vote on it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Set the agenda for the year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Moving right along.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before we degenerate any further, does anyone
have a problem having that hearing on the evening of December 2nd?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's do that, and Mr. Fernandez, if we
can -- first of all, do we need a motion? We'll entertain a motion on
that, but I'd like to make sure we keep the agenda for that Tuesday
short enough that there's time to at least get a meal in between the
two because when we get grumpy up here, it's not a pretty sight, and
hunger will cause that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The low blood sugar.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, can I get a motion to change that hearing
date?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to change that particular date, and
Mr. Chairman, we are only talking about the one meeting, not the 17th?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This would only affect the meeting --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- of the 3rd.
A motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll bring the 17th back in two weeks.
Just kidding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ** Okay. We are to item -- we are to actually
public comment on general topics. We finished the morning agenda in
approximately 42 minutes; not bad timing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who do we have registered as public speakers
today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None on general topics.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have none registered under general topics.
Item #12A1
RESOLUTION 97-392, RE PETITION CP-97-3, GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG,
VAN ASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A., REQUESTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
TEXT AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REALLOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM PORTIONS OF THE
FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD/DRI LOCATED IN THE URBAN COASTAL FRINGE AND URBAN
RESIDENTIAL FRINGE DESIGNATED AREAS TO SPECIFIED LANDS LOCATED IN THE
AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATED AREA OF THE FUTURE LAND USE HAP - ADOPTED
*** In that case, we'll go ahead and move into advertised public
hearings. The first item on our agenda, Item 12(A)(1), Petition
CP-97-3, Mr. Varnadoe representing -- requesting a Growth Management
Plan text amendment to the Future Land Use Element.
Mr. Arnold, good morning.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, commissioners. Wayne Arnold, planning
services director presenting this item.
Again, this is a comprehensive plan amendment, and the request is
to amend our plan with text which would authorize the Fiddler's Creek
project to extend dwelling units currently outside the urban boundary.
Again, this is not an extension of our urban boundary, but it is a
provision in the text that would authorize them to maintain their
existing 6,000 dwelling units within the project boundary, extend
their project boundary and then bring dwelling units into it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There would be no additional dwelling
units?
MR. ARNOLD: No additional dwelling units for the development,
and, in fact -- you can tinker with the calculations, but it -- the
project area of roughly 1,385 acres would authorize 277 dwelling units
at current density today in addition to the 6,000 that Fiddler's Creek
is already authorized to construct on their property, and, in fact, it
could be seen as a reduction in dwelling units by 277 units.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, just so everyone is clear, this
matter we are asking about today is whether or not to transmit it to
the state for comment? We'll receive their comments back and then
we'll either finally adopt it, and that, in itself, has no effect on
zoning. There's still a zoning issue to be heard, a PUD amendment.
So, this is an early step in a process if it's to move forward
that will have at least two more public hearings?
MR. ARNOLD: I think it may actually end up having one or two.
I'm not quite sure. It depends. We are not requesting that the
Department of Community Affairs give us an objection, recommendation
and comment report on this item, and that was requested by the agent
for the applicant, and what that will do, it will authorize them to go
ahead and proceed. We'll transmit. The state, I believe, has 30 days
to make or to determine whether or not they wish to issue an
objection, recommendation and comment report on this issue.
If they choose not to, it will come back to us, and we'll be able
to adopt that if you choose to transmit it and then adopt it, and
again, we looked at this issue as one. It's a large piece of
property, but essentially, it is constrained by urban development to
its east with the Boye South Golf Course. You have an industrial
project to the north. You have some other housing sites. You also
have a travel trailer park, a mobile home park and some other
commercial and mobile home zoning along the north side of U.S. 41.
The state has also identified 13 indicators of urban sprawl which
the developer looked at and answered as part of their application
packet. We also reviewed those and find that, in our opinion, it does
not meet the indicators of sprawl as defined in state statute, and
again, that's because water and sewer -- it is within the Collier
County water and sewer district service boundary currently. It
doesn't extend the need for services. It doesn't have an impact on
levels of service. It doesn't affect population projections. It
doesn't create a pattern of urban development that's remote from other
services or other development, and there are several other indicators,
but those are what I would consider to be the most important for
determination of sprawl, and we don't believe that it does meet those
indicators.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With the near proximity of the Boye South
Development, it would almost -- I would categorize it more as infill.
MR. ARNOLD: It is, and again, it is a large project of 1,385
acres, but essentially, it ends up being infill, and frankly, when you
look at the state indicators for sprawl, to have a fixed boundary such
as Collier Seminole State Park, it makes a lot of sense, and, in fact,
our urban boundary used to be out here until 1989. It was retracted,
but the water/sewer district boundaries were left in place because we
had service agreements and were currently providing service to other
developments.
I think that if you look at the language that was on Page 2 of
the executive summary package, you can see that what we are
contemplating is that the developer has agreed that what appears on
the aerial, and maybe Mr. Varnadoe can highlight it on his aerial. I
think it's easier to see than on mine, but there are a substantial
number of wetland acres on the south sides of Section 29. They have
committed that that area will not be developed with any dwelling
units.
He has his map legend over a portion of that, but that, in fact,
is committed not to be developed with any dwelling units. The
remainder of the dwelling units would be on the upland areas with a
total impact area of ten acres to wetland, and again, there is no
significant environmental impact. It is largely, as you can see, a
farm piece of land, a former sod farm.
Again, they're keeping all access points to the development in
place, and you will be seeing a companion PUD amendment. I believe
it's scheduled for mid November for planning commission. It should
come back to the board sometime in December.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, so you have contiguous
property, and then there's no new cutouts onto U.S. 41; is that
correct?
MR. ARNOLD: I think the developer has indicated that all access
to the site would remain internal to the existing Fiddler's Creek
project, and they would use the existing access point that they have
allocated through the DRI, and I think it should be noted too that the
Fiddler's Creek project, a couple of years ago, they came back and
voluntarily gave up 2,000 of their dwelling units and went from an
8,000 dwelling unit maximum down to 6,000 dwelling units at that time,
and I think, given that, we also see here that that impact today, if
you went back and re-allocated density, I think that you're going to
find that they could still achieve 8,000 dwelling units under our
current plan on their total project area if they were to seek that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The issue of whether or not to access U.S. 41
along this new parcel, I wouldn't like to pitch and hold that just
yet. I think that's more of a zoning issue, because there may be an
advantage to one down there, but I think that's an issue to look at if
this moves forward in a zoning scenario where we have the
transportation review and so forth, but I certainly wouldn't want to
make any -- I personally wouldn't want to make any limitations on it.
At this point, I'd like to look at it in an appropriate sense then.
MR. ARNOLD: In an issue that's sort of -- not directly related
to the comprehensive plan text amendment in itself, but that would
certainly come out as part of a PUD amendment is that I think the
developers committed to make some substantial drainage improvements
along this corridor and this geographic part of the county, which Mr.
Varnadoe may be able to go into some more detail on that, but I think
it certainly met with some of the approvals of your stormwater
management staff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What -- what's the current drainage pattern
here? It's all farm fields that do their thing of flooding, pumping,
irrigation, all that other business, and then they just -- I don't see
any lakes on it. They just discharge into canals that move in a
southerly direction?
MR. ARNOLD: Apparently so as it's been actively farmed. I don't
believe that there was -- at the date when most of the development
approvals were given, if any, there were no requirements, I'm sure,
for water management discharge and control structures, and it's
basically a sheet flow right now from what I understand.
I didn't point out, I don't think, that the ultimate density of
the project, if this plan amendment is successful and the companion
fezone is successful, it would bring the project density down from
about 2.5 dwelling units per acre to 1.6 dwelling units per acre.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On just the numbers themselves?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we are talking about is a density,
overall density reduction to 1.6 units per acre but a specific, I
guess, removal of potential dwelling units of nearly 300.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two seventy-seven.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two seventy-seven.
So, those -- if this moves ahead, those are units that cannot be
built in Collier County.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
I'd just like to go ahead and summarize by saying that the
planning commission heard this. No one spoke in favor or in
opposition of the project. We received no correspondence in favor or
in opposition of the project, and -- or I should say the comprehensive
plan text amendment, and the planning commission recommended its
transmittal seven to zero.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I've had some contact with --
from both the petitioner and from other people through correspondence
and personal contact, but I'm going to base my decision solely on what
I hear in this public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, disclosure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've had contact from all parties.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I've had contact from the petitioner, but
I'll base my decision on what I've heard this morning; and Mr.
Constantine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As required by state law -- oh, sorry.
I've had contact with the petitioner and a couple of letters
dealing with the urban sprawl issue that I'm in the process of
responding to, but I'll base my decision on the information presented
here today.
Mr. Varnadoe, good morning.
MR. VARNADOE: Good morning. For the record, George Varnadoe
representing the petitioner, 951 Landholding Joint Venture.
I think that you-all have explored most of the issues, but I'll
try to be brief, maybe give you a little background. The overall
objective is to amend the DR -- DRI development order PUD in order to
add 1,385 acres to the Fiddler's Creek project with no additional
units because the land to be added -- we're adding to the project is
in the ag. area, and we would need to prosecute a comp. plan
amendment. In order to accomplish that, we need to transmit to DCA in
advance, but you're right, Mr. Hancock, this -- today is only a
transmittal hearing. You'll be hearing the entire project in
approximately two to three months where you'll consider it all in a
bundle, that is you will determine whether or not to adopt the Growth
Management Plan amendment, whether or not to approve the DRI,
development order amendment, whether or not to amend the PUD.
Having said that, let me hit a couple of the basics, because we
have had some people questioning whether this is appropriate or not.
As you-all recall and as Wayne mentioned, the original Fiddler's Creek
project arose out of the Deltona settlement agreement where some 9,110
units were approved for this area. Interestingly, the Conservancy and
the Florida Audubon Society, among others, were signatories to that
agreement whereby some 9,100 units were going to be in this area.
Since this developer got involved, the density has been
voluntarily reduced. We started at 9,110. We went to 7,000. As you
can remember, about two years ago, we went from 6,000. We added 690
acres right here about a year ago without increasing the density. So,
you lost another 1,035 potential units out of the county at 1.5 units
an acre in the fringe area. Now, we are seeking to continue that
trend, add the 1,385 acres with no additional units.
I think that it's important to know what's happening on that
1,385 acres. Out of the 1,385 acres, all of the parcels you see that
have -- are undisturbed, if you would. Some 450 acres will be in
preserve. Out of the remaining land, 635 acres will be an open space,
recreation, lakes which leaves, if my map is right, about 300 acres
we're actually going to be building units on. So, you can see it's a
very low intensity, low density project trying to improve the quality
of life for the people in the development.
From the environmental perspective, I'll just say -- you know,
the bottom line question, is the environment better off after we do
this or is it better off with the farming. I don't think anyone in
this room is going to argue. It's going to be better off when we
finish this project.
If you can remember in the original -- and let me refer to the
site plan over here. In the original project, we had this elongated
spreader swale, what we call Fiddler's Creek, along the south edge of
the property which is not part of the water management system. It's
not needed for attenuation or water treatment -- that had bled into
the wetlands to the south and provided a buffer from the upland
development to the wetlands to the south. We are continuing that
spreader swale system over to the east, and that will, again, allow
sheet flow into the wetlands as opposed to the point discharge you now
get when the farmers pump their land out.
The drainage things that Wayne Arnold was talking about are more
off-site than on-site, Commissioner Hancock. The farm operation with
their berm has blocked the drainage north of 41 from coming south.
There's no way to get down to the natural historic drainage patterns.
Along that, water has been forced to the north and then down Henderson
Creek, kind of -- not a very natural situation.
John Bolt approached us when we did the Section 13 addition, if
you would, and we've given him easements that run the drainage along
here, back down here and then point this into the spreader swale
system for the bleeding into the wetlands.
The same thing here, he asked us to help. We are going to give
him an easement, 100 foot easement along this side. It will, again,
go down and then go into our spreader swale system where it will shoot
flow into the wetlands to the south.
So, basically, anything of environmental significance that hasn't
been disturbed on the property is going to be maintained as it is.
The --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Varnadoe, I know you need to get
some things on the record, but it just seems like kind of a no
brainer. If we are going to take 277 units off the books, we are
going to improve the drainage, you're going to protect the existing
environmental property, and we are lowering the densities -- maybe I'm
missing something, but it doesn't look like there's a downside to
that.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, I wish I could say that everybody agrees
with you, Commissioner. When I read in the newspaper the Conservancy
had concerns regarding what we were proposing to do, I met with them.
I met with them yesterday, and they do have some concerns. We have
talked about the project. We've talked about their concerns, and I'm
not trying to say what their concerns are, but they've come mainly for
a precedent effect of violating the urban line.
I think this is a very unique situation. I can't -- I don't know
anywhere else in the county, and I've looked hard, where you have
urban development beyond the part we are trying to add in. So, it is
mainly an infill development, but I'll quit now, but if I need to
answer questions raised by others, I'd like to have a couple minutes
to do that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the interest of time, as I'm reading
Commissioner Constantine, I think that's appropriate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I appreciate that, and there are
those, you know, general project specific to this piece of property,
there are a lot of benefits, but our obligation, obviously, is to look
at a broader issue, and the broader issue is what the meaning of our
urban boundary line, and so, I will tell you, I'm not -- I'm not ready
to fight this issue today because today is merely transmittal, but I
don't want my agreement to transmittal to DCA -- frankly, I'd like to
send it to DCA and get their comments, and that's basically going to
be, you know, where I'm going with this today, but I think it's a much
more complicated issue than just this particular piece of property.
So, I wanted to tell that in all fairness.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many speakers do we have registered, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have three, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and go to public
speakers, and then we'll see if the board has remaining questions.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The first speaker is Nancy Payton, and then Pat
Clark.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton from the Florida Wildlife Federation,
and we do have concerns, and we oppose this amendment to the Growth
Management Plan. We do feel that it blurs the urban and rural
boundary lines, and it decreases urban density while increasing rural
density which seems to be the reverse of what we feel our Growth
Management Plan should be doing, which is maximizing density within
the urban area and then when that is built out, we look to other
areas.
Also, it sets a bad precedent to amend the Growth Management Plan
for a particular development, and we read it as the market guiding our
Growth Management Plan rather than our Growth Management Plan
directing appropriate growth in appropriate areas.
We also feel that it violates several of 9J-5's 13 indicators of
urban sprawl, and those include; number one, promotes, allows or
designates for development substantial areas of jurisdiction to
develop as low intensity, low density or single use development or
uses in excess of demonstrated need. There's no demonstrated need for
this addition to Fiddler's Creek.
Four, as a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of
rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve
natural resources such as wetlands, flood planes, native vegetation,
environmentally sensitive areas, natural ground water aquifer recharge
areas, lakes, rivers, shore lines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems
and other significant natural systems.
I understand there have been discussions with Rookery Bay, but
Rookery Bay still has concerns about what's going to happen on that
land and the impact on Rookery Bay --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're not speaking for Rookery Bay today, are
you?
MS. PAYTON: No, I'm not, but I did have discussions with them
yesterday because I had heard that they had signed off and supported
this, and that was not confirmed yesterday, so I wanted that to be
clarified.
Six, fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and
services. Seven, fails to maximize use of future public facilities
and services, fails to provide a clear separation between rural and
urban uses, discourages or inhibits fill development or redevelopment
of existing neighborhoods and communities, fails to encourage an
attractive and functional mix of uses.
There's no need for this land area in the current planning frame
-- time frame.
Also, there are negative impacts on national resources,
specifically Rookery Bay and the Deltona conservation lands, and those
include runoff concerns, surface water discharge, pesticides,
herbicides and the issue of mosquito control.
We support the county not asking for an ORC. It's not necessary.
We will ask for an ORC, and by allowing us to ask for an ORC, it
allows the public 60 days to submit comments on this Growth Management
Plan amendment, and we appreciate that opportunity and thank you for
that recommendation. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Pat Clark.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Was that staff's
recommendation? I'm confused about that.
MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't believe that it was.
MS. PAYTON: It's in the executive summary.
MS. CLARK: Good morning. I'm Pat Clark, president of the
Collier County League of Women Voters, and I'm here to speak for the
league against this proposed amendment.
In the past, the league has opposed expansion and continues to
expose expansion of the urban boundary into the ag. -- into the areas
of the county that are designated as agricultural and rural. We feel
that this amendment to the comprehensive plan will do just that. It
would allow potential development much higher than is currently
allowed and does set a precedent.
The league believes that the urban boundary and the densities
that have been established should be preserved and retained as is, and
therefore, for that reason, we urge you to reject this amendment.
Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is David Guggenheim.
MR. GUGGENHEIH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For
the record, David Guggenheim, president and CEO of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida, and I speak to you on behalf of our 5,000 members.
You know that the Conservancy is committed to protecting and
sustaining our natural environment. As you know, we are gravely
concerned with what happens outside our urban boundary. You also know
from our work on Twin Eagles that we are realistic and reasonable in
these efforts, but today we must stand in opposition to this proposed
amendment because it seeks to undermine the efforts that we have all
worked so hard to achieve, mainly the establishment of a clear,
meaningful and realistic criteria for development outside of our urban
boundary.
In order for our urban boundary to have meaning, we must
steadfastly defend its integrity, and this proposal is premature. It
comes at a time when we as a county are struggling with rapid growth
and coming to terms with how development outside our urban boundary
will affect our quality of life.
At its essence, the project seeks to push an urban DRI beyond the
urban boundary into the rural zone exceeding one on five density by a
factor of eight from approximately 277 to over 2,200 units. This
project's approval would dilute the meaning of the urban boundary and
set a dangerous precedent for future PUDs located at or near the urban
boundary.
In addition, despite claims of reducing density and the total
number of units, I want to point out that you should consider the
possibility that the market demand for amenities, larger lots and
uncrowded developments might not support 6,000 units on the original
2,300 acres. In realty, it's very possible that the county might see
a net gain of as many as a thousand units as a result of this proposed
project. Also, the decrease in units in the original tract will not
result in an increase in natural preserve areas but rather more
amenities such as larger yards, lakes and golf course.
We also believe it's unlikely that the nonurban section will be
developed into five acre ranchettes or small industrial parks in the
future. We think it's probably much more likely that it would be
developed as a nonurban PUD hopefully using criteria such as those in
development beginning with Twin Eagles, and we certainly would not
object to 277 units going in there using those sorts of criteria as a
nonurban PUD.
I'd also like to point out that there -- it seems that there's
always a case to be made for why a given project is different. I
think that owes largely to the development history in this county and
the changes that have occurred.
I do want to acknowledge several good points about this project.
For one, they are restoring natural water flow to this area. That's
important. Their development is taking steps to avoid impacting
natural areas, about 450 acres which is significant though it does
fall below the 50 percent criteria we've established on our nonurban
PUDs.
They've also taken it upon themselves to involve staff from
Rookery Bay and from the Conservancy and others to get our input, and
that, we certainly appreciate, and that dialogue, I think, makes us
all stronger, but nevertheless, given the precedent setting
ramifications that this project would have beyond the boundaries of
this project, we feel we have no choice but to oppose it.
By the direction put forth by this board several weeks ago,
Collier County is now committed to a landmark process by which we will
work together to establish appropriate criteria for development
outside the urban boundary, criteria which ultimately will establish a
model that we can all live with, and, therefore, we would respectfully
ask you not to transmit this to DCA but rather include this project as
part of that forthcoming workshop that will develop criteria for
development outside the urban boundary.
If you do make the decision to submit to DCA, to transmit,
please, we'd be very interested in their comments. I think we owe it
to ourselves to hear what they have to say.
I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Guggenheim.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker, Ty Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty
Agoston from a less attractive northern Golden Gate Estates, and I'm
speaking for myself.
During my working years, reading the newspapers, I have always
viewed environmentalists as some people who really didn't have
anything else to do, and they were looking for a cause.
Lately, I have found that they do have a cause, and they are
approaching it in stalt (sic), and I don't like the cause. We see
here, now that I've considered -- watch how government operates, we
see them march here one after the other trying to persuade you with
some nice sounding words protecting the environment, but what they are
looking for is what the lady from the Wildlife Federation mentioned,
the infill.
I have had the opportunity to read Sustainable America,
Sustainable Florida, and there's a whole range of books that the
Department of Energy publishes, and I have gained the understanding
that the infill is nothing less than forcing the American population
within urban areas where they can walk to work. There is no
automobiles needed. Their children are being taken care of or to go
back to my childhood social utopia where everyone is being taken care
of, all they have to do is forget about them being a human being.
The design is for ants, not humans. There's no area for freedom.
There is no area for creativity. Either you do what you're being told
or you are straightened out, and I feel that here we have a project
that you're dealing with that is actually taking that extra step to
avoid an attack from the environmentalists, was not sufficient enough
for them to come up and fight them.
I don't know just exactly how far a project owner would have to
go in terms of accommodating the environmental group, and I don't
believe that it can be. I believe that they will fight any developer
to the extent of how far they can go and try to stop the project
because their motives are to keep the people in Hiami stacked 20 high.
At one time, I remember reading that if the rest of the world was
populated -- the rest of New York City was populated at the rate of
Harlem, you could move the world into New York City. Now, of course,
you know, statistics could be pushed around, but the fact of the
matter is, that's what they are looking for. Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: There are no other speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. There are a couple of things that
were raised, particularly by Ms. Payton, that I -- I just -- I have to
shake my head at.
One is failure to maximize use of services. Now, it's all in how
you look at the urban boundary and the purpose for the urban
boundary. Some people would say the urban boundary's reason is to
keep people on this side and critters on the other. Some will say
it's a growth management tool, a protector of, you know, not allowing
or disallowing use of land outside the urban boundary.
For those of you that have a background in planning, the reason a
urban boundary has been defined is for the purpose of providing urban
type services; water, sewer, law enforcement. There's an economy to
having higher densities in an area to provide those types of services.
The urban boundary was really based on, not just in Collier County,
but in the Growth Management Act, on the ability to provide -- whoever
has that phone, I want it off. Whoever -- thank you. That boundary
was identified for the purposes of providing urban services and mirror
the water/sewer district line, for the most part, with a couple of
extensions.
So, it depends on how you use the term urban boundary. We all
had -- we were all here when the request to extend the physical urban
boundary was brought forward, and five-oh agreed there's just simply
no need for that. There's no need to extend the urban boundary to
increase intensity outside the urban boundary, to increase units
unnecessarily in an area that we cannot provide services. To me,
that's what's being lost here, is the environmental banner is being
used inappropriately.
I have to agree with what Dr. Guggenheim said. The spot issue
such as Twin Eagles, we need to have a method of dealing with those,
and we have committed to work with that, but this is different in the
sense that it, you know, goes into a nonurban area, but the property
is zoned right up to that line, and the people who are 100 yards
either side of that line use the same roadway, use the same water, use
the same sewer. We have an urban area out to the east of it.
So, this is not like Twin Eagles. This is not like the request
to expand the urban boundary. It is an individual decision, and some
of the -- the comment such as the fact that it would be
disadvantageous or harmful to the environment of what's being proposed
versus the agricultural uses, which, if I'm not mistaken, at least
twice a year they flood it to drown out the nematodes and crank all
the water down into Rookery Bay. The last time I checked, that's not
an environmentally friendly way of using land.
So, I want to make sure that we are dealing with the facts, and
the best way to do that, in my opinion, is to transmit this to the
state to find out what the concerns at the state level are, to get
their opinion on those 13 criteria, because I wrote them down as they
were being discussed by Ms. Payton and happen to disagree with much of
what she said. So, let's get the state's opinion on it, and then we
can make a land specific zoning decision at an appropriate time with
all the environmental safeguards and whatnot that we wish to either
incorporate or to deny the project because they don't exist, but that
would be my recommended course of action.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, if you would close the public
hearing, I'd make a motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Since this is not expansion of the urban
boundary, and since this is not a final decision in any case but just
a transmittal to DCA, I'm going to make a motion that that's what we
do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question maybe for Mr. Arnold,
because you make a very good point, Mr. Chairman, about what is the
urban boundary line, and I do know that it is essentially a line of
where we are going to provide urban type services, and -- but you have
an advantage over me in that you have a planning background, and I
guess what I'm looking for now is what is a planning tool that would
be useful in drawing a line that is meaningful in -- here's what I'm
looking for. I'd like for there to be a discernible difference as you
drive through Collier County that you've left the urban area and you
are into the rural area. Very simply stated, I'd like for it to look
different and feel different and to know that I've gone from the city
to the country, and to the extent that that is still possible in
Collier County, I'm looking for a planning tool. If the urban
boundary line is not that, then I'm looking for a planning tool to be
able to cause that to happen from a long range planning perspective in
Collier County.
If there's an answer, if there's an easy answer, I wish you would
give it to me now. If it's something that needs study, I understand
that, but I am looking for some planning tool that serves that
purpose. If it's not this line, then I would like to see something
else.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think with that workshop we have coming up
doing goal setting and so forth, some of that discussion may be
fruitful because it depends on whether you are concerned about the
impact of development on the bounds of the community or the visual
character of development, because the impacts of one unit per five
acres is the same whether the houses are five feet apart or 500 feet
apart.
So, I guess that, to me, I tend to look at, how does it impact
the balance of the community and density as a single best control to
determine that external impact, but what you're talking about is a
visual character issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is, and -- and I would really like for
there to be a distinction, and I think that a lot of people in the
county have that expectation about the meaning of the urban boundary.
Whether they should or they shouldn't -- I hear people say to me all
the time, I want to be able to see a tomato field, not that they are
particularly gorgeous, but that you don't feel like you are living in
a big city, when every now and then, you can drive and see just open
land.
You know, so that is what I'm looking for. I'm really struggling
with this and whether or not to even transmit it because I wish we
would study it under the Twin Eagles kinds of proposal about a
nonurban PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's different because it's not a
different owner. You know, it's not a piece that is outside of the
urban boundary. It's an extension with no additional units, and I
think that's what makes a big difference.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I think it's important to understand
that the services are already going through that property. They have
to go down and service that development to the east.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Boye South.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the name of that; Boye --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Boye South
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Boye South, B-O-Y-E.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was urban. It was urban before, and
then the piece in between there that we are dealing with today was
taken out subsequent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I believe water and sewer go out, and
that's the one difference here is that the water and sewer district
extends out this far, which makes a difference as to, again, what
services can and should be provided. You know, I think that's a
tremendous difference, and if you look elsewhere in the county where
we have a water sewer district extending beyond the urban boundary,
Mr. Arnold, nothing comes to mind for me. Everywhere else, the water
sewer district mimics the urban boundary or is even inside of it.
MR. ARNOLD: It is, I think with the one exception maybe of Old
Florida Golf Course --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: -- and that's just east of 951.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did this happen? If this is within --
if basically the urban boundary was urban services, what's the history
then? How did this come to be outside the urban boundary, if, in
fact, there are urban type services already available to this piece of
property.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Prior to '89.
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, since I've
researched that, can I just quickly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Quickly, please, yes.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes. When we -- this was in the urban boundary
all the way up to State Road 92. In '89, we looked at this area, and
we said, we've got to do a Growth Management Plan that shows we can
meet all the service requirements in the area. There was no plan to
four lane 41 out beyond Greenway Boulevard ever in the state's plan.
We had no overall drainage plan out beyond 951 and no money to do
a drainage plan, so we didn't have the ability to do the level of
service standards and show how we were going to get there from here,
so we retracted the boundary in to the Fiddler's Creek property, the
red line, and we squared it up to take in Section 13 because that was
approved, the Fiddler's Creek project was approved.
Now, we are having one developer come in that can do a master
drainage plan, take care of the drainage problems north of 41, but
when you're riding out there, Mrs. Mac'Kie, it's very difficult for me
to say, okay, you're going to ride by an urban development, you're
going to go by one mile of farm field, then you're going to run by
travel trailer parks and an industrial park on the north, Boye South
with RSF-3 on the south. I mean, I agree with your point, but you're
making a point for me. This is a very unique circumstance, and a
bright line, in my opinion, we drew it in the wrong place. We should
have drawn it on the east edge of Boye South, not back here --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie --
MR. VARNADOE: -- but that is the end of it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a short answer is Boye South was
that way prior to the change in '89.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As was this particular piece, this subject
piece of property was in the urban boundary.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This was in the urban boundary. I used to
remember looking at a map that had a leg that kicked all the way out
41 to Boye South that was colored yellow, colored urban, and then in
'89, it was changed, but the water/sewer district wasn't, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one more question, and then I'll
hush, and that is, if Boye South -- is that a current map as far as
how far progressed its development is?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's a fairly accurate map. They have
been making a move forward. I think that the Boye South developers
actually acquired most of the single family homesites, and they are
moving forward with development proposals there. They've spent a
significant amount of money reworking the golf course and approving
drainage and facilities within that development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ongoing currently?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Mac'Kie raises
some interesting points, and -- I mean, from a planning perspective
and a visual perspective, I think ultimately what we'll come up with
in a workshop is both of those are important. I mean, we have to do
the planning side, but I think we are being asked to do the visual
side as well, and with the help of the Conservancy and others, I think
that's where we'll ultimately get. I don't know that we are going to
get that answer now, but hopefully, that workshop is scheduled this
fall, and we can move ahead with it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And since this project has no additional
external impacts in addition to preserving as proposed, every piece of
wetland on the expansion piece, in addition to improving water
management, I find it very difficult to use this hearing as a stop gap
and say, let's not go any further.
So, there's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Norris. Is
there a second to the motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Further discussion on
the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one.
I'll tell you what, we are coming up on 10:30. Let's take just
five minutes and return at 10:30 for the completion of our agenda.
(Small break was held).
Item #12B1 - Readvertised for October 21, 1997
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 97-49, RE PETITION PUD-85-29(1), R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG,
VANASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A. REPRESENTING JIM COLOSIHO, TRUSTEE,
REQUESTING A PUD TO PUD WHICH WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF BRINGING THE
NAPLES GATEWAY PUD AND PUD MASTER PLAN INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896) AND 1-75
INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. We are going to reconvene the
October 14th Board of County Commissioners' meeting.
*** We left off at Item 12(B)(1) which was continued, so we are
to Item 12(B)(2). This is Petition PUD-85-29(1), Bruce Anderson of
Young, Van Assenderp & Varnadoe representing Jim Colosimo. This is a
quasi-judicial matter, and for that purpose, I'm going to ask that all
members of our staff, members of the petitioner's team and any member
of the public here to speak on this item, please stand and raise your
right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, would you swear them in, please.
(The speakers were sworn).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: Good morning. For the record, my name is Bryan Milk,
and I am presenting Petition PUD-85-29(1), Naples Gateway PUD.
The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from PUD to PUD in order
to meet the requirements of the sunsetting requirements per Section
2.7.34 of the Collier County Land Development Code. In doing so, we
repeal the old PUD and bring forward a brand new PUD.
In that Planned Unit Development are current development
regulations for transportation, engineering, water management, open
space, native vegetation, signage, landscaping and more importantly,
architectural design guidelines and site design parameters that are
current and up-to-date with our current regulations.
Naples Gateway was approved in 1985 for a commercial PUD. It's
been in the commercial node for approximately 17 years now. In 1983,
Collier County had a Growth Management Plan which designated that area
as a commercial node. In 1989, it was a site specific for an
interchange activity center which also referred to that area as an
interchange activity center.
This PUD offers additional uses to the Planned Unit Development
which includes professional offices, business offices, business
related service and some related retail items. The PUD also provides
a setback of 300 feet for hotels and motels -- I'm sorry, convenience
commercial related issues as far as convenience stores, fast food
restaurants and gasoline service stations. It also limits the height
of all the buildings to 35 feet. It provides a setback from the rear
property line which is contiguous from Livingston Woods Lane of 50
feet for a one story building and 90 feet for two and three story
buildings, again, maximum height at 35 feet.
It also incorporates a 20 foot landscaped buffer contiguous to
Livingston Woods Lane that is similar to the Angileri PUD which also
encompasses an eight foot tall masonry architecturally designed wall
landscaping which includes trees every 15 feet on center and a three
foot hedge on the north side of that particular wall.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Milk, let me clarify that. I wasn't
sure if you meant the eight foot masonry wall is only on the Angileri
PUD or whether it will be on this one as well.
MR. MILK: It will be also on this one within that 20 foot
landscaped buffer. In fact, they are identical in nature.
This project provides two --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, before you go on, the --
what is the landscape buffer on the south side of the wall in the
Angileri PUD?
MR. MILK: The landscape buffer would include a three foot hedge
contiguous to the wall running --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the distance of the landscaped
buffer in the Angileri PUD?
MR. MILK: Twenty feet. They are both 20 feet. In other words,
there's a 20 foot buffer for Angileri and the proposed Gateway.
Within that 20 foot area, a masonry wall has to be constructed,
architecturally designed with the project itself, painted accordingly
and then a landscaped hedge on the north side of the wall and trees 15
foot on center also on the north side of the wall. So, what you have
is a green area of open space and then a wall for noise retention, and
then you move into the project with the setbacks and height
restrictions.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the south side of the wall, on the
inside of the project in the Angileri PUD, didn't we have some
additional restrictions as far as usage?
MR. MILK: Well, what we had is two things really. On the south
side, actually, that setback from the nearest building was 90 feet.
Petitioner here proposes 50 feet for a one story building or 15
foot in height, 90 feet for two and three story buildings, maximum
height of 35 feet.
In the Angileri PUD, that, because it was almost -- it was a
little under five acres, it was used for water management and
retention for the project. So, that area was used as a green open
space only for open space water management, not for drive aisles and
parking.
The difference between this project is, in that 50 foot setback,
the petitioner could ultimately park and use that as a parking and
drive aisleway behind the one story building or in that 90 feet area.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, if you're a resident living across
the street on Livingston Woods Lane -- I don't know that you would
consider parking as additional setback, so if somebody could park 20
feet plus another ten feet or whatever it takes before they get to a
parking space away from your --
MR. MILK: Twenty feet at this point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But it would be behind an eight foot masonry
wall; is that correct?
MR. MILK: And landscape buffer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anything -- are there any tall
buildings on that -- I mean, could anybody on the other side of the
wall see cars parked there? Is there anybody who would look down on
that area?
MR. MILK: There's actually three houses in the vicinity.
There's one directly behind the property. There's another one kind of
northwest of the property and one northeast of the property. They are
all one story single family residences, all set back at least 75 feet
from -- I mean, they are approximately 100 feet from the property
boundary now.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just seeing it from a noise and
activity standpoint. I want to try to make these as consistent as we
can, and we struggled to come up with the result of the Angileri PUD,
and I'd just hate to make anything any less than that at this point.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree, but let me clarify one thing.
Doesn't that Livingston Woods Lane or whatever that road is,
isn't that directly along the property line? MR. MILK: That's correct, and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, there's a road actually between any
residential use and this 20 foot buffer? MR. MILK: That's also correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, anything further on your
presentation?
MR. MILK: No, sir. The only thing, the board or the planning
commission heard this on October 21st. It was approved nine to zero.
It was approved at a recommendation that in the 50 foot setback, that
they could use that as parking and vehicular use areas. Staff
recommends that that 50 foot be used as open space green area and
water management retention. It's not the 90 feet that the Angileri
has, but it's somewhat of a compromise because of the wall, the 20
foot and that open space green area.
If I can answer any questions, I'd be happy to do so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At this time, let me ask for a disclosure from
everyone on the board.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I met with the petitioner's
representatives.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had some correspondence, and I've met
with the petitioner's representatives, but I'm going to base my
decision on what I hear in this hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I've had a meeting with the petitioner's
representative. I think I have received some correspondence from the
residents in that area, but I will base my decision on what I've heard
this morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've had contact. However, my
decision will be rendered in accordance with the laws of the State of
Florida.
MR. MILK: Can I make one more comment, please?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: The resident to the northwest basically behind the
project was attendant at the last planning commission meeting, and she
was concerned about that preserve and buffer that was existing, and
she was opposed to the gasoline service station and the convenience
store as was an additional neighbor. So, actually, two people at that
meeting spoke in opposition not to the project but the gas and
convenience store combination.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Like other members, I've had correspondence on
this matter and met with the petitioner, but I will base my decision
on the information presented here today. Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question
regarding the service station particular part of this amendment. Is
there any chance that we can approve this and say that we don't want a
service station placed in there, because that was one of my concerns
when we talked about the Angileri PUD? I supported a service station
being in there, but I didn't, obviously, didn't think that in
subsequent PUDs that we should allow it so we end up with a service
station at every one of those particular ones.
If there's a possibility, I would like to support this particular
PUD, but I would like to support it with the idea that there not be a
service station allowed in that particular area. I don't know if we
can talk to the petitioner's representative. I don't know how he
feels about that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The irony of that being this one had,
in its old form, had been approved with that use, but one of the
arguments made by the petitioner for that PUD said, well, okay, we are
just going to have to come back anyway, and -- so, I mean, they are
all arguing against one another. We are hearing both sides of the
argument. So, I agree with you. I'd like to see the same thing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're a little ahead of me, because I have
had the opportunity to discuss that with the petitioner, and I'll let
them, obviously, speak for the property owner, but we, as a board, in
approving the Angileri PUD, were very adamant that we would review
with a fine-tooth comb sunset provisions and new zoning requests along
that corridor because the term gasoline alley was thrown up, and I
think we all agree that that's not the type of development we want in
this corridor.
So, I think there's been at least three commissioners state that
that's an important element, and I would venture to say there are
probably two others that would agree with that, but I'll -- I'd just
ask that the petitioner address that use as a part of this PUD based
on what they've heard here today. If they weren't planning on doing
it, to go ahead and do it during their presentation. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we also -- during the Angileri PUD,
we had a number of restrictions because it is so close to residential
property as far as outdoor speakers and sound and lighting and so on.
I assume this is -- from what I've read, it appears to be in concert
with those same restrictions.
MR. MILK: It is. This one prohibits loudspeakers, any public
address systems in the entire project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which if no service station exists, most of
those impacts would be nonexistent also because that's the only thing
I can think of that uses speakers outside.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you like fries with that, sir?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't go pick on my mainstay of meals.
MR. MILK: And I'll say one other thing too is, there's no pole
signs allowed on this project, so in concert with the Angileri, they
are allowed ground signs and copy signs on the building facade. So,
it is uniform in that respect as it is in landscaping, development
standards and buffers for the most part.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions for Mr. Milk? Let's
go -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was going to thank you for having the
staff report so thorough on all of the beneficiaries of the land
trust. Sometimes it's hard to find that, and this was very clear and
very good. I hope you do it this way all the time because it's really
easy to check and see if you have a conflict when it's laid out as
clearly as this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero did tell us that would be taken
care of, and Mr. Milk, thank you very much.
Let's go to the petitioner on the item.
MR. FERNANDEZ: There are none.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have no --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's no petitioner.
MR. FERNANDEZ: There is a petitioner, but no comments from the
public.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That usually guarantees a quick motion.
Good morning.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For
the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the property owner.
Mr. Milk made reference to the PUD sunset provisions, and I do
want to emphasize that this property owner has voluntarily come
forward to seek an amendment of this PUD, to bring it up to current
county Land Development Code requirements. They were not dragged
kicking and screaming before this board in order to do that. They --
and I might further add that they are a good neighbor or want to be a
good neighbor to the citizens of Livingston Woods.
Besides bringing this PUD up to current Land Development Code
requirements, there are significant changes to this PUD that Mr. Milk
remarked upon. One is the reduction in building height from three
stories over parking to only three stories. We have increased the
setback from Livingston Woods Lane from 30 feet to a minimum of 50
feet for a one story structure. I'd point out that the Land
Development Code only requires a 25 foot setback for commercial zoning
districts.
Also, with regard to buffering, we are providing twice the number
of trees that would normally be required by the Land Development Code
and are also continuing the eight foot masonry wall that you imposed
upon the Angileri PUD.
I believe he also mentioned that we are more restrictive in the
Land Development Code and follow the Angileri PUD requirements for
signage, and we also follow those same stricter than normal
requirements with regard to architecture. We have imposed --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One of my favorite subjects.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes, and all these things were done
voluntarily.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not kicking and screaming.
MR. ANDERSON: That's right, that's right.
Stucco buildings, peaked roofs with tile or metal only.
Our only area of disagreement with the staff concerns the ability
to park in the 50 foot setback area. We want to be able to have
parking within 30 feet of that 50 foot setback area, and I would like
to give you some compelling reasons why we should be allowed to do so.
Number one, your Land Development Code permits that, normally.
Secondly, the county is requesting a 20 foot right-of-way dedication
from the front of the property for the eventual widening of Pine Ridge
Road. Another compelling reason is we are providing the eight foot
wall with the landscaping in the back. People aren't going to be able
to see the cars back there anyway. We also have an environmental
constraint with this large wetland area that straddles the property
line. We are preserving that and are planning to put the water
management area as a further protection around that wetland, and
lastly, we need to have that flexibility to have some parking within
the setback area in order to comply with the county's new
architectural guidelines which limit how much parking can be placed in
the front of a building that's greater than 20,000 square feet.
I would note that the planning commission, a full complement of
planning commissioners, recommended approval of this petition with a
nine to zero vote, and let me also state in response to your prior
discussion regarding the service station, that the property owner
will, with some reluctance, give up the service station use to get the
PUD approved in its present form minus that use, and I guess I would
ask a clarification question. Do you also -- do you have an objection
to a convenience store without gas pumps? I don't know that any exist
anymore but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My personal preference is I looked at the
setback issue and what the difference was between your proposal and
staff's. I think far more damage could be done by the presence of a
gas station or a convenience store than that issue. So, from my
personal standpoint, if you are willing to remove, albeit reluctantly,
the gas station and convenience store from the use list, then the
issue of an eight foot masonry wall solves the parking or near parking
problem for me behind the building. I think that's -- getting those
removed is probably the most critical thing we could do in this PUD,
since we have expressed to the residents of Livingston Woods that we
would try and accomplish that.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. I mean, that satisfies my
concerns. Those are the biggest.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand staff's concern and what you're
trying to do, and I don't dispute it, but since we use eight foot
masonry walls for sound attenuation of six lane roadways, I think an
eight foot masonry wall for sound attenuation of a parking area is, in
my opinion, more than ample, and if we can get the gas station and
convenience store removed as uses, then I'm not -- I personally don't
feel as compelled to argue the other point as I would have otherwise.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Agree.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No speakers? That was it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any registered speakers, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question, one other thing
that kind of falls in the same category. It's not in the same
category, literally, but from a concern standpoint, automotive repair,
do you have any objection to removing that item?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hay we reopen the public hearing? We need to
get a response from the petitioner on that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What -- Mr. Milk, what category of
automotive repair are we looking at, what level?
MR. MILK: With an automobile service station, it's usually tire
rotation, minor --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But this is without.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, this is a separate --
MR. MILK: Well, that is something we would have to clarify then
because automotive repairs are different --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seventy-five fourteen.
MR. MILK: -- is distinctive in different category types. If
it's conducive to gasoline service stations in this issue, it's
limited. If it's automotive repair, overhauls, transmissions,
mufflers, that's C-4, C-5 use.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's in here.
MR. ANDERSON: We'd like to be able to retain the opportunity for
inside a building automotive repair, no outside.
MR. MILK: And what I can say, the Land Development Code
differentiates between automotive repair businesses as service related
types; battery changes, oil changes, tire rotations, minor automotive
work rather than the more intensive transmission, overhauls and that
sort of thing so we can --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need somebody to look up the SIC and
tell us what 7514, 7515 and 7542 except truck and bus washing.
MR. MILK: What we can do is there under the automotive service
business in the Land Development Code, I think it's two six something
that allows only minor repair work, and I will attest that it doesn't
allow transmission work and overhauls and that sort of thing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that may or may not be what's
referenced here though. I mean, this is automotive repair, services,
parking, car washes, groups 7514, 15 and 42.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think in a motion we can state the intent.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me see if I can -- maybe I can clarify
it a little bit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just don't want to --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Some of the convenience type automotive
uses are allowed in C-3, that's correct, isn't it?
MR. MILK: Well, actually, C-2, 3, and 4, so that's where I'm
saying that if you can have -- I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But something on the order of a Midas
Muffler is what you're talking about as opposed to someone who's doing
extensive major repairs?
MR. MILK: Actually, muffler work, transmission work, overhauls
are all C-5 primarily.
What I'm talking about is tire rotations, some brake work, some
batteries, windshield wipers, that is customarily associated with a
gasoline service station, pull in, change a tire, get back on the
road. I'm not talking about an automotive transmission --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if it's customarily associated
with a gas station, it's not going to be there anyway. I'm concerned
about having a C-5, whether there's an eight foot wall or not, having
C-5 by somebody's home. That's just not appropriate.
MR. MILK: And I think in the Land Development Code under
gasoline service stations, your concerns for major engine and
automotive work is taken care of, and I can go back and eliminate
those uses that aren't --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the fact you think that,
but in here it very clearly states group 7514. I need someone to be
able to define for me on the record what 7514 is or isn't; not what
they think.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have a copy of your SIC code here?
MR. MILK: I didn't bring them, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've got one in my office.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, go get it, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll be right back.
(Chairman Hancock leaves the room).
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just put him on staff. Make him stand over
there when he brings it back.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pay him for two jobs.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: We can sing or dance or do something up
here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The Jeopardy theme is traditional at this
point.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: The Jeopardy theme.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just wondering how they are
getting that on the record.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, on the record they're going to say
Hac'Kie whistles.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, begin paten., Hac'Kie whistles
Jeopardy theme, end paten.
(Chairman Hancock arrives back in the room).
MR. MILK: I think -- and this is where it's going to come out.
It says above the automotive repair, it talks about automotive
dealers and gasoline service stations, groups 5511, 5531, 5541, it
says with services and repairs as described in Section --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we are talking about Section 4.
MR. MILK: I understand that, but I think 7514 is car washes and
some other use besides --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You think or you know?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody get the book.
MR. MILK: I don't have a book.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, mine is not in my office.
Ms. Filson, don't we have an SIC code in the board office
somewhere?
MR. MILK: I think it's on its way from the attorney's office.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: Can I ask you, what's the intent here? Do you want
just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want a C-5 use. Eight foot
wall or not, I don't want a C-5 use 20 feet and a road away from
somebody's house.
MR. MILK: And can we do that on the record and stipulate that,
and those uses that are C-4 and C-5, if, in fact, they are in here,
we'll eliminate them and make that a --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can't do that without their --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure we can.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, we can.
MR. MILK: If the intent is minor repair work, my intent is it
only allows that in C-2 and C-3 districts. Major repair work, if
that's the intent here, is C-5 for the majority of them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me see if I can couch that in two
sentences. The first we've talked about, the second, we haven't. So,
let me know -- what we are looking for is C-3 and lesser intensive
automotive repair facilities.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the second thing is that no work bay shall
face the residential area.
MR. MILK: We can do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm just trying to envision as a
Gateway -- my concern is not only the residential area but when we
talked about gasoline alley and the impact that has when you first get
off what is our number one exiting entryway into Collier County,
what's the impression that makes upon people, and I don't want you to
necessarily get off and look at a car carcass.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Don't want those bays facing the
road either. I mean, at least if they're facing residential, they're
behind an eight foot wall. If they're facing --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I don't like either one of those
options, frankly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody tell us what we are talking about
here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I understand what you're saying. I just --
you know, a Goodyear Tire Center, there's one that's in Naples Park
now that's right off U.S. 41, and it actually was done quite well, and
it's about as attractive as it can be, so I guess I'm trying to say,
rather than preclude a use altogether, if there are ways of coming in
properly, that's probably the best road to take.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess, for me, when you say
attractive as it can be, the question is, is it attractive enough to
be in the Gateway. I don't know that -- I know -- you know, my
analogy I always make is you can put a 350 pound guy in a tuxedo but
he's still a 350 pound guy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The book.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not that there's anything wrong with that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, not that there's anything wrong
with that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The book.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but, you know, I have a concern,
you can dress this up as much as you want, but it's still an
automotive use, and it may or may not be appropriate there. I kind of
think maybe not.
MR. MILK: Let me just go through that category that is
distinctive to automotive repair, services, parking and car washes.
SICU 7514 is passenger car rental.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can live with that.
MR. MILK: Seven five one five, passenger car leasing; 7542 is
car washes, and -- but there's an exception, no truck and bus washing.
So, it's a car wash facility and not a truck wash or truck depot, that
sort of thing, and then 7521 is automobile parking except for tow and
parking lots which is the salvage yards, derelict cars, whatever you
want to call them, but it's just parking.
Let me just move back up to the automotive dealers and gasoline
service stations.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which we've removed already, haven't
we?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, three is altogether out, my
understanding -- no?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let's see what it ranges because
automobile, gas stations and convenience stores specifically I don't
want in there. What is the rest of it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. MILK: Five five eleven is motor vehicle dealers. In other
words, if they chose to put a new car lot there, it would only allow a
new car lot facility.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: New car or used car.
MR. MILK: New car. That is use 5511. Five five three one is
auto and home supply stores. Five five four one is the use you want
to eliminate, and that is gasoline service stations.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, 5541 is eliminated. Five five
eleven and 5531 remain.
MR. MILK: And we can also put a provision in there that would
not allow the convenience stores because a convenience store is a use
specific which falls in a category retail type use.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it fall in retail? Would it
fall in food stores?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, which one?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we make sure we remove convenience
stores under whatever --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll remove it by verbiage.
MR. MILK: Just put an exception in here that it does not provide
for -- we'll do it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wouldn't it be under number eight though,
Bryan, food stores?
MR. MILK: It could fall in a couple of areas; general retail --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or nine.
MR. MILK: -- food stores, and what I'm saying is, we'll put an
exception that eliminates the potential for convenience stores in
here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me see if that --
MR. MILK: And let me just back up with that. Now, there's not
any availability for any auto repair in this, period, based on the
uses we've just read.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the only one we eliminated said gas
station.
MR. MILK: That's correct, but with the gasoline service station,
it did allow minor repair work.
The question the commissioner had is, we had two categories,
automotive repair, services and parking. Those uses were other than
repair industry. They were rental car, leasing and parking lot.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But Bryan, I'm sorry to interrupt, but
number four should never have said automotive repair, services. It
should have just said parking and car washes because those numbers are
rental and leasing and car washes and parking.
MR. MILK: I know that, but it falls under a category in the
7,000 category as it does back in the 5,000. One is automotive
dealers. One is automotive repair. It's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but that's going to confuse somebody
about what they are entitled to. I mean, they --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, why can't it be listed as
automotive repair if it's car rental -- MR. MILK: I just say that --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish a question.
MR. MILK: I'm sorry.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You may have -- obviously, if you have
a rental company, you may have to repair your car from time to time,
so it's an accessory use, but why you would have the accessory use
listed and not the primary use is beyond me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong, Bryan, but that's the
title of the section in the SIC code.
MR. MILK: It is. That's exactly right. In other words --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What happens is it says automotive repair,
services, parking, car washes, and then lists groups and specifics.
MR. MILK: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem is the way we are structured under
permitted uses is kind of a hybrid. It makes it look as if by
verbiage, we are allowing these things, and by numbers, we're adding
these things when, in fact, you're citing a title of a section in the
SIC code --
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and the permitted uses under it.
MR. MILK: That's exactly correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'd better change that, Mr. Cautero, for
policy to clarify.
MR. MILK: And I only did that because it's representative of the
major SIC group as it falls out alphabetically.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it should say something like those
-- the following under -- the uses under this title are permitted as
specifically numbered, as specifically identified by SIC code numbers
so-and-so, because otherwise you're going to -- I thought you had
automotive repair.
MR. MILK: At first glance, once we've talked -- it would appear
that way, that's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm worried about eight and nine because I
want to know what food stores and general merchandise stores are.
MR. MILK: A food store is a grocery store, and number one says
convenience food stores.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, under 5411 including supermarkets, we
need to say excluding convenience stores.
MR. MILK: That's correct. That would be the best place to put
that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can craft a motion here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me do this. We did reopen the public
hearing for a response from Mr. Anderson. I'll close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion we approve
staff recommendation with the following changes. We take out
permitted uses and structures. We remove item three, the automobile
service stations. We make a note under eight and nine, as just
pointed out by Commissioner Hac'Kie, to exclude convenience stores,
and I'd like to see us exclude 7542 which is car washes as well. I
think we just get back into the visual welcome to Naples -- if it's a
-- particularly self-serve, just by the nature of them, aren't very
attractive. I don't think they fit with what we are trying to
accomplish along the roadway there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would agree with all of that except for
I have a question on eliminating item number three under 5.3. I
thought that we were only suggesting to eliminate -- I've scratched
out now 5541 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. You're absolutely correct.
I'll amend my motion to reflect that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. MILK: That is the gasoline service station use specific.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Leaving in 5511 and 5531.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Good catch. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you -- is your motion to -- under car
washes, to exempt specific or eliminate specifically self-service,
because closed car washes are not typically obnoxious. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll make that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to point out that car washes
are a C-5 use, aren't they?
MR. MILK: C-4 or C-5.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All car washes?
MR. MILK: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you had seen that one at Towne Centre
or wherever that is --
MR. MILK: Usually with a gasoline service station, and I'll use
Mobil, you have the drive through tunnel. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. MILK: That was put in there because if the gasoline service
station was going to be approved, I didn't want any questions
regarding that being a permitted or an accessory use, so it was called
out excluding truck traffic.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. My concern, again, I just don't
want to see eight concrete bays with people hosing down --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, is your motion to eliminate self-service
car washes or car washes altogether?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the preference of the board?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with closed car washes
in this location, personally.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't really have a problem with
enclosed, but if someone did, I would eliminate it.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't have a problem with them. There's
times when it's welcome, particularly during love bug season down
here. So, people might be getting off of 1-75 looking for something
to get their car taken care of quickly, so I'm --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one clarification on your
motion, and that -- by putting these stipulations on, are you also
agreeing to allow the parking in the 50 foot setback area?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I had staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whoops, I've got to withdraw my second. I
think it's okay to park there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I believe with the wall, that that's
acceptable.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
The motion fails for a lack of a second. Is there a substitute
or a second motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same motion Commissioner Constantine just
made only allowing for parking in the setback area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As provided for in the Land Development Code?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How about as recommended by the planning
commission?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First 30 of the 50?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. MILK: And it's actually provided for in the PUD document
currently. That has been revised.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As provided for in the PUD document?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, all of the elements of
Commissioner's Constantine's motion stand with that being the one
exception?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you, Mr. Milk.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 97-50, AMENDING ORDINANCE 80-47 CALLED THE COLLIER COUNTY
PARKING ORDINANCE, RAISING PARKING FINES, AND OTHER SUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENTS - ADOPTED
*** We are to Item 12(C)(1), adoption of an ordinance amending
Ordinance 80-47 called the Collier County parking ordinance, raising
parking fines and other substantial amendments.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask a couple of real
specifics on this? You're pretty clear in your thing. I have no
opposition whatsoever to uncontested handicap parking violations.
There's no excuse for that whatsoever. I think that's a great idea.
I do have a question though. Why are we raising the parking,
stopping, standing from 10 to 25 and -- I guess that's the only one
out of the four --
MR. CAMP: As a deterrent. There's no deterrent now. They park
all the time. They know it's a $10 fine, and there's just no
deterrent.
THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management
director.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And this is for countywide or just --
MR. CAMP: Countywide.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Any questions for Mr. Camp?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Public hearing?
MR. CAMP: I would like to thank the county attorney's office,
particularly Tom Palmet, for the help on the project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the staff
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
Have we closed the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing, yes, I'm sorry. I
didn't say it specifically.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #13A1
PETITION CU-97-16, BRUCE E. TYSON, ASLA, AICP, OF WILSON, HILLER,
BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING THE WILLOW RUN TRUST REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT,
HAVING THE EFFECT OF EXPANDING THE WILLOW RUN QUARRY EARTH MINING
OPERATIONS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 11, 12, 13 AND 14, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 200 ACRES, MORE OR LESS -
TABLED UNTIL INFORMATION CAN BE PROVIDED LATER IN THE MEETING
*** We are to 13(A)(1) under advertised public hearings, Petition
CU-97-16, Bruce Tyson, AICP of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek
representing the Willow Run Trust conditional use one of the ag.
zoning district.
This, again, is a quasi-judicial matter. I'm going to ask that
members of the staff, the petitioner's team and any member of the
public here to speak on this item, please stand and raise your right
hand.
Madam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Good morning, sir. For the record, my name is Ron
Nino.
This petition would seek your approval of a conditional use for
an earth mining activity within the agricultural district. The
property is located to the east of 951 just north of the sports park,
south of Alligator Alley. This petition currently -- the landowner
currently has an earth mining operation on 200 acres of land. This
would add -- this petition purports to add an 80 acre parcel to the
south and a 120 acre parcel to the north so it would functionally
operate with the existing fit. Not all of those areas will be mined.
The conditional use Master Plan within your executive package shows
only portions of those areas will be mined.
Relative to its relationship to other properties, I'll have you
note that the nearest residence is about a thousand feet away from the
area to be added, let alone where the actual earth mining activities
occur, i.e., the processing of the aggregate as it comes out of the
ground; that those areas are accessed from Alligator Alley so that, in
effect, no residence is affected by the lime haul route. The lime
haul route will continue to be along a private access road off of 951
and Mr. Tyson will show you a Master Plan that shows where the
processing facilities are.
So, you have a situation where no residence is really affected by
the lime haul route, and moreover, there's no residence within a
thousand feet of the boundary of the total 500 acre mining activity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, is there a residual land plan that
you have been seeing or discussed with the petitioner or is the
property expected to be mined to its perimeter?
MR. NINO: No, the property is not expected to be mined to its
perimeter. The master plan contains an area -- shows the areas where
earth mining activities will occur within the added areas, and you'll
see the hatched area, but in effect, you really don't have the entire
200 acres that's now coming on board as areas that would be mined.
Actually, most of those areas will be preserved or should there
be an extension, they would have to come back to this board for an
additional conditional use.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman --
MR. NINO: Clearly from the point of view of compatibility, you
know, it's the position of staff that there just isn't anything around
here that will be affected by this petition.
Clearly, clearly we have an activity here that is isolated from
any development. You have an earth mining activity to begin with.
Nevertheless, in spite of its isolation, there are a number of
stipulations included in the resolution for adoption that further will
enumerate the impact of this development on its environment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Nino, I'm sorry to interrupt, but
unlike the last petition where I could tell who the beneficiaries of
the owner -- the property is held in trust, and I could tell who the
beneficial owners were, so I knew whether or not I could vote. If
it's in here, I've been unable to find it. I see Mr. Quinby is the
trustee, and I'm willing to bet you ten bucks I don't have any
conflicts because I don't know anything about this property, but how
am I going to be able to determine whether or not I can vote on this
project if I don't know who the beneficiaries are of the land trust?
MR. NINO: I believe the application that was in your executive
package contains a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine just --
MR. NINO: -- description of who owns the property and who the
beneficiaries are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it did, it didn't make it to my packet.
I have that Mr. Quinby is the owner in trust and that Joe Bonness is
the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we might have an answer.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. Just in
response, it's the Bonness family, family members, Southern Sand and
Stone and Chris Stoneberger (phonetic).
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are the trustees -- I'm sorry, the
beneficiaries of the seller trust or of the purchasing trust?
MR. VARNADOE: Purchasing trust.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know the beneficiaries of the
selling trust?
MR. VARNADOE: I do, Commissioner Mac'Kie, not by name but they
are all out of town beneficiaries. Mr. Quinby is from Ohio, and I
don't know them by name, but none of them live here, so I would doubt
that you would have a conflict.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I doubt seriously that I do too, but I
need to make the point that that's got to consistently be in here so
we can make that judgment call.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Point well taken. Let's --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We went through that. I mean, when
Commissioner Volpe was on the board --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. I remember.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- he did a number of things, and we
-- we went through this same thing. We just -- I realize it's an
exercise for staff to make sure that the petitioner does that, but
that's essential. If the board is going to vote, we have to make sure
we don't have a conflict, and if we don't know who the trustees are
representing, it's pretty hard to be sure we don't have a conflict,
and -- I mean, five years ago, six years ago, we asked specifically
that that be included anytime we had this, and it's pretty hard to
move forward on it.
MR. NINO: I thought this application had all that information,
quite frankly. I guess I was in error, and I'll assure you that it
won't happen again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's make sure it doesn't on any of
these applications.
MR. NINO: Continuing on, the EAB, of course which is the --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on. I've got a question. Does
this require four affirmative votes --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because just a suggestion is that
if it appears that -- I mean you may want to --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to know --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- be careful, yeah.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- who the Ohio people are. I mean --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know Commissioner Volpe actually
left the room about five years ago so as not to participate because he
didn't know.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It occurs to me.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And on a couple of occasions, we
continued items simply because the application wasn't complete in that
manner, and we can go on and talk but --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Maybe we need to find out.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If we don't know who those
people are --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to know.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we can't vote on it.
MR. VARNADOE: Could we go ahead, and I'll step out of the room
and try to determine that?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we can get that on the record, I'll be
happy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's do that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's proceed with the public hearing to
either a point of decision or a point of information which identifies
the beneficiaries of the trust.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the problem with Commissioner Mac'Kie
is that if she's absent a conflict, she's required to vote.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: You can't just say, well, I don't know
whether I do or not --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't feel good.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No offense to --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- therefore I'm not going to vote.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can't get the information,
maybe --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: We can't do that. That's not right.
The problem with having a land use attorney on the board is that
you have -- you're going to have specific conflicts, but you have a
global conflict to begin with in that you regulate the industry that
you deal with.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that would be interesting if I were a
land use attorney, but I'm practically only barely a real estate
attorney any more.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As a point of information, I have -- it's my
understanding that leaving the room is illegal.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I wouldn't do it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point is, we probably shouldn't go
ahead with the item if we don't know who those people are, not that
Commissioner Mac'Kie should leave the room.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, and guys, you know -- I mean,
obviously, you may have -- there are other ways to have conflicts
besides being a lawyer. If you had an insurance sales business and
this was a client who you might get insurance business out of -- I
mean, there are a whole lot of ways to have conflicts. You could have
a -- Commissioner Constantine, you know, you could do P.R. work for
some of these people. It's always possible.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. This really isn't the issue at hand for
us. At hand for us is the zoning question, so let's try and focus on
that.
I'm going to ask that we continue to hear this item until a point
we have received who the trustees are or we don't. If we have a
five-zero vote in favor, it's immaterial.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but we can't vote until we know if
we can vote.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exactly. It is material because I'm
not going to vote on it unless I know who the property owners are.
Theoretically, I could have a conflict, you could have a
conflict, anybody could because we don't know who --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, do you have any more information on
this?
MR. NINO: Relative to the beneficiaries?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To the -- just to the application and your
presentation this morning.
MR. NINO: Yes. I simply place on the record that the EAB
reviewed this petition. You'll appreciate, the EAB is your primary
body that reviews things for water management and environmental
relationships. They recommended approval of this petition, and their
recommendations are included in the resolution of adoption that
guarantees us that environmental requirements through our Land
Development Code will be adhered to in the development process.
The planning commission heard this petition, and unanimously,
seven to nothing, recommended its approval. We've received no letters
in opposition. No one spoke at the planning commission in opposition
to this petition.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to request that there be a motion to
table until the petitioner can provide the information that's been
requested.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
The motion is tabled until later in the meeting or at the end of
the meeting when we'll be forced to deal with it.
Item #13A2
PETITION A-97-9, SUSAN MIDDLEBROOK AND CINDY MILLER, REQUESTING AN
APPEAL OF A COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMHISSION'S APPROVAL OF A BOAT
DOCK EXTENSION APPROVED ON AUGUST 21, 1997, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
LOTS 84 AND 85, ISLES OF CAPRI, UNIT 1 - APPEAL DENIED; PLANNING
COMHISSION'S APPROVAL UPHELD
*** Let's go to Item 13(A)(2), Petition A-97-9, Susan Middlebrook
and Cindy Miller requesting an appeal of the Collier County Planning
Commission's approval of a boatdock extension approved August 21,
1997.
Good morning, Mr. Badamtchian.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram
Badamtchian from planning services.
Susan Middlebrook and Cindy Miller, as you said, they are
appealing the approval of this boatdock which was approved by the
planning commission August 21st, 1997.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we need to swear people?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we need to swear at people or swear in
people on this?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, is this something that we need to
swear in the witnesses?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it is something to swear in witnesses, although
Ms. Student will have additional protocol for the procedures she'd
like to provide.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, can I comment on that -- on that
particular issue of swearing in witnesses?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're going to disagree with the county
attorney on that?
MR. SAUNDERS: I may.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS: The -- this is an appeal of a decision by the
planning commission. The appeal is on the record, and I guess what I
would caution the board is that you're not to hear new testimony.
There is a process where you hear public comment, but in terms of
sworn testimony from witnesses, that's not appropriate in this appeal.
So, I would disagree with the county attorney if the implication
is that new testimony can come in.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our decision is to be based solely on
the record as it exists; is that correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's exactly right, and that's what Ms.
Student was going to tell you, but at the same time, we wanted to hold
everyone who may be providing information to the board to have the
standard that they have sworn that the statements they make are true.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With the understanding that the board has to
base this decision on the record that is presented today, and although
we may take public comment, that record is the governing, I guess,
element of our decision. I don't see any harm in swearing in those
individuals that are going to address us today.
So, why don't we proceed with that. Members of our staff, the
petitioner's team or anyone here to speak on this item, please stand
and raise your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
That being done, Ms. --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. One more question, and that
is, what's the standard approved for something on this?
MS. STUDENT: I was going to address that. Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney.
There are two set forth in the land code, and that is whether the
decision of the planning commission is based upon competent and
substantial evidence, and secondly, whether or not the decision is
consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management
Plan. In this case, it would be the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I just saw a number of
the residents of the area stand, and I'm sure you will keep them in
line in this regard.
Anyway, keep in mind, your comments today can be -- we are not
rehearing the case. We are looking at the record and what happened,
and everything that we decide today is based on what happened at that,
and so as you compose your thoughts, I saw at least a dozen of you
stand up, and as you compose your thoughts to get up and speak, you
need to reference why you agree or disagree with the decision that was
made as it happened at that hearing, not state the reasons all over
again. You need to reference the flaws or the reasons why it was
right at the hearing.
So, just as you compose your thoughts now to try and do it in
that vein.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, are Mr. Constantine's comments in
line?
MR. WEIGEL: They are not only in line, they are well stated.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay.
You'll get your honorary law degree at the conclusion of the
meeting.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whether you like it or not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Badamtchian, we've been trying to get to
you. I think we are finally there. Please go ahead. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Thank you.
Mr. and Mrs. Hughes, they own two lots in Pompano Bay. Over the
years, silt and sand deposits have separated those lots from the
water, and in order to gain access to Pompano Bay, they purchased the
silt deposit from the state, and they need a 179 foot boatdock
extension in order to reach the adequate water depth. This boatdock
will be 259 feet from the platted property -- the platted lots that
they own and 179 feet from the newly purchased silt deposits.
The planning commission reviewed this and voted four to -- five
to four approved the petition. Staff's original recommendation was
for denial because of the size of this boatdock and the view blockage
that it will cause.
At this time, the staff recommends that the BZA determine whether
the planning commission properly applied the provisions of Section
2.6.25 in this case.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask staff a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before getting into questions, we do need to
have a disclosure on this matter. Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've had contact with the petitioner's
representative, and I've also had other correspondence relating to
this, but I'll base my decision on what I hear this morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've had contact, but I'll stay within
state statute.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, I've met with both the members of
the petitioner, also the members who presented it to the planning
commission and some correspondence from the area. I'll base my
decision on that input compiled with what we hear today. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had numerous contacts, but I'm going
to base my decision on what we have at this hearing today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My contact has been with the petitioner in
the appeal and also with the representatives of the original
applicants.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Staff's original recommendation was that they
either dredge the area, because this is not only a problem for Mr. and
Mrs. Hughes, it's a problem for everybody. They cannot have access to
the water -- most lots in this corner, they cannot have access to the
water. Staff recommendation was that they dredge the area or maybe
build a community dock that -- one big boatdock that everybody can
use, and it's permitted as a conditional use in the RSF-4 district.
That's why staff recommended denial of this petition.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine and then Commissioner
Berry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned a couple of different
things about staff recommendation, and they appeared in the record.
One -- let's go to the one you just said first. If this --
theoretically, if this were allowed, what would prohibit the next lot
owner, in lieu of a community dock, the next lot or the next lot or
the next lot, what would prohibit having half a dozen 250 foot docks?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm afraid that if this continues, all the
boatdocks, they have to crisscross each other, because they have to go
300, 350 feet into the bay, and there's a sharp angle there, and some
lots, they may not be able to have boatdocks because others, they have
built large docks first.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And do we have a map? You -- you had
indicated you were concerned that this would block some views. Do we
have a map where you could show me that?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have a map and I have pictures of the area if
you want to look at them. It shows where the boatdock will be placed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess just -- unless you have --
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you know, I'd like to look at the
big picture.
MR. SAUNDERS: Just for the record, if I might ask, the pictures
you're about to show the commission were pictures that were presented
at the hearing, so it's not new testimony; is that correct?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right. Everything we have has been presented
at the planning commission first.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. I'm -- I'm just trying to see
if there's a big aerial or something where you can actually draw a
line.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is an aerial on the wall which was also
presented to the planning commission, but that's an exhibit from the
original applicant.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just briefly, for the record, those are copies
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Name.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- of what was introduced.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Name.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My name is Rich Yovanovich for the record.
So, those are copies of what was at the planning commission
hearing. The one to the right is, obviously, the aerial and then a
larger scale showing where exactly the boatdock will be.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: For the board's benefit, would you indicate on
the aerial the area that is blown up larger than the two diagrams next
to it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is -- this is the aerial, and this is the
bay in question, and that's the adjoining bay, and this is the blowup
and scaled model of what the dock will look like with all the
adjoining lots.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yovanovich, my eyesight has failed
me some in the last five years. Is that -- is there a little red line
there on that big blowup picture, and is that representative of the
dock?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, that is, and that is representative of the
dock that we are proposing, and I could pass it down -- I apologize
for the size of it, but I can pass it down if you need to, but that is
what is being proposed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Badamtchian, is there anything else in
your presentation you feel the need to get on the record as it was
presented to the planning commission?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I don't think so.
The only thing was -- I also mentioned that it may be a hazard to
navigation, and by building this boatdock now, we may not be able to
dredge the area in the future because the boatdock would be in the
way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My guess is the DEP wouldn't let you dredge it
until hell freezes over anyway, but that's just a guess. Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That was exactly the question. What's the
reality of being able to dredge that area?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know if you saw it, but I had a
letter from the DEP that said, no, and don't even call back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't make me laugh.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well -- and that's my question. I -- I did
see that letter and yet I heard this morning that that might be a
possibility. So, I'm getting a mixed signal here that is it a
possibility and is it not a possibility, and it sounds like if DEP
says it's not a possibility and that's who you have to apply to, then
reality of dredging is not even an issue. It's not going to happen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's pertinent because it's a
recommendation contained in the record we're sitting here reviewing,
so it's important to know what those possibilities are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was that letter part of the record,
though, I mean, if we want to get technical?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely, I introduced that as part of the
record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay. Okay. Any further questions for
Mr. Badamtchian?
Okay. Let's go ahead and hear from the petitioner.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. For the
record, my name is Butt Saunders with the law firm Woodward, Pires and
Lombardo, and we are representing the petitioner in Petition A-97-9.
It's our contention that there is no competent substantial evidence to
support the grant of this approval, that this is also inconsistent
with the Land Development Code, and we base that on the testimony that
was provided at the hearing.
Staff has already pointed out that this is a boatdock that will
be 359 feet out from petitioner's platted lot, and in applying the
appropriate criteria in evaluating the petition, the staff took a look
-- if you'll take a look at the staff report on Page 3, Item Number 7,
the standard is whether or not the proposed structure is of minimal
dimensions to minimize the impact of the view of the waterway by
surrounding property owners. The staff analysis states, due to the
size and location of this proposed docking facility, the view of
several waterfront property owners will be impacted.
The staff report goes on further, Item Number 9, the standard is,
whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock/vessel
combination is such that it may infringe upon the use of neighboring
properties, including any existing dock structures.
The staff --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Saunders, can I just tell everybody,
Page 28. Everybody is fumbling. I just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of our packet.
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm just referring to the staff report, and that
is on Page 28 then of your record.
The conclusion of staff is that this site is located at the
midpoint of a curve on the bay. A dock -- a boatdock with a 359 feet
length as measured from the platted lot and 179 feet as measured from
the accreted land will negatively impact the ability of neighbors to
build similar boatdocks.
The staff then concludes that this boatdocking facility will
negatively impact the view of the neighbors on Pelican Street as well
as on Dolphin Circle. Additionally, this boatdock, due to its size,
location and configuration, may interfere with the ability of
neighbors to build boatdocks.
Staff then goes on to talk about community docks and other
solutions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I interrupt -- interrupt just for
a second?
MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The building of this dock would
interfere with other people building similar docks, is that what I
just heard you say?
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm reading from the staff report. This -- it
would -- it would impede the ability of others to build docks to get
access is what the staff has indicated and what they were indicating
in their --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems kind of an awkward
argument to say this one shouldn't be allowed so that future ones can
be allowed.
MR. SAUNDERS: The statement is, additionally, this boatdock, due
to its size, location and configuration may interfere with the ability
of other neighbors to build boatdocks; not talking terms of boatdocks
of the same size, but of other neighbors building boatdocks that would
interfere with that -- that one that extends 359 feet out into the
bay.
The -- there's a statement in the record that I want to refer --
refer you to. It's from Planning Commission Chairman Mike Davis.
It's on Page 24 of the transcript. I don't know what page that
is of your record. There was a motion made to approve the petition,
and Chairman Davis says, I'm not going to support the motion. I tend
to agree with what Commissioner Nelson had to say. It's my opinion
that staff recommended denial in their expert opinion because of
conflicts with criteria seven and nine -- those are the two criteria
that I just reviewed -- and I have to say I've heard no testimony
today to refute either one of those.
The reason I wanted to point that out is that if you'll go
through the transcript, the only expert that was -- other than staff
that recommended denial, the only expert testimony was from the
consultant, Mr. Miles Scofield. Mr. Scofield did not address those
two issues, seven and nine, in the transcript. If you'll go through
that, you'll note that there is no reference to those two items in
there.
There is no competent substantial evidence to refute the
competent substantial evidence that staff had presented that this will
negatively impact views and the ability of other owners to build
boatdocks, and based on that, based on the fact that your decision has
to be based on what was presented to the planning commission, I would
urge that you would uphold the appeal and not permit the construction
of this dock.
Mr. Chairman, there are several people in the neighborhood that
want to speak in the public comments section, so I will address the
board at the conclusion of the public comment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, Mr. Saunders, if we have questions
at that time, we'll address them to you, but we don't afford time just
to -- for rebuttal, if you will.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Mr. Badamtchian, I have a question. Mr. Saunders referred to the
competent substantial evidence that staff presented, and one of those
issues is how this dock would prohibit in some way others from
building a dock. Help me understand that because as I understand
riparian rights, they go out to a point in the water, your dock must
be contained within your property, so to speak, as it relates to
riparian rights, and if you can't get outside of your property, how
does it, therefore, prohibit someone else from building a dock?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: When we build a boatdock, we always require 15
feet setback on either side so when other people, they build a
boatdock, they have easy access to their dock.
In here, when you go out 315 feet and build that, you don't have
that 15 feet setback on either side. They are -- they have, I
believe, like three foot or something like that, a very small setback,
and building boatdocks next to each other with three or five foot
separation, it's not going to be easy for boaters to maneuver and go
into their dock area and get out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At the planning commission, did you discuss
the design of the dock and whether it was a minimalist design or not?
Was that discussed at all?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it was not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That being one of the criteria, that creates a
problem for me because the request, minimal dimensions -- which, to
me, means are they building as little as they can build to have the
right of access at their dock. If that wasn't discussed at the public
hearing in any way, I have a tough time deeming that competent
substantial evidence one way or the other because that's important to
me.
Is this the minimalist construction to achieve the objective, and
we don't have anything in this record that says whether it is or is
not. Is that your recollection?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is the minimum boatdock that's necessary
to reach adequate water depth and have a reasonable size boatdock.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And actually, that is referenced, what I
can see, is Page 13 of the transcript, Page 11 of our packet, there's
some discussion about the minimal depths and just what Mr. -- Dr.
Badamtchian was about to say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's in distance to go out. I was talking
about the structure at the end of the dock, because if we're dealing
with setbacks and so forth, you know, you could have a lift that you
nose into in a linear fashion or one that Ts at the end of the dock.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gotcha.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One -- the orientation of each may impact your
neighbor's ability to do something down the road.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and that -- he said something
about a three or five foot setback, and I'm assuming that's when you
go out 259 feet or whatever the distance is and which, again, goes
back and conflicts with the question I asked Representative Saunders,
and that is about the docks. We are arguing that this dock isn't
allowed because it will interfere with other docks. Well, apparently,
the only way it's going to interfere with other docks is if they are
two and 300 feet out there as well, and -- I mean, just -- it's not a
logical argument.
The only way you're going to have that setback problem is if you
have side by side 250 foot docks. Am I mistaken by that?
How far out do you have to go before you get a three foot
setback?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That -- our code doesn't address that. It just
addresses the setbacks when you build a boatdock on your property.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And again, we need to attempt to limit this to
the record as much as we can --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but I'm concerned when something that is
one of the criteria isn't addressed to the level that I would like it
to, but that's really the role of the planning commission. I don't
really need to be critical of them.
Further questions at this point?
Let's go to Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Before I get into my other comments, I
want to address that one first.
In the record, which you may not have in front of you because I
realize staff didn't give you the whole file, was a copy of the letter
from the DEP that addressed that this is the minimum structure that
they would require to build this type of dock to get to deep water and
also in the record are copies of affidavits from the adjoining
property owners which agreed to the minimal setbacks for this.
So, the only issue would be whether the adjoining property owners
would get into that setback issue. So, the record did address that.
I know that's kind of out of order of what I'm going to talk about,
but I wanted to address that first. That seemed to be a concern.
For a historic standpoint, Ellie Hughes bought Lot 84 in 1973.
According to the plat and according to her survey, the lot was
waterfront property. Due to natural forces, some land started
accreting to her lots and there became a question as to whether she
owned the accreted land or whether the state owned the accreted land.
She went to the state and acquired the accreted land from the state to
eliminate any question as to who owned that property.
Also, due to the configuration of this lot and the new accretion
of land and the fact that it was never dredged out as originally was
supposed to be dredged out, she acquired the lot next to her for the
purposes of making sure she can get far enough out to get to deep
water and stay with her riparian rights. So, she went and she did
that.
So, that's how we got to where we are today.
In 1991, Ellie Hughes attempted to start the dock permitting
process. Her first attempt was a community dock. The same people
that are complaining about her single dock today complained about her
community dock a few years ago.
In addition, the state doesn't have a community dock for this
type of situation where you have single family lot owners combining to
form one community dock. They address it with multi-family projects,
but they don't address it with the single family lots.
What that resulted in was both of the Hughes' and their neighbors
abandoning their idea of going with a community dock. Therefore,
basically, a community dock is not an alternative at this time.
More recently, they've attempted the single dock, as I've
mentioned, and lo and behold, there's objections again.
I do want to point out what the staff did find in their record,
and it's from their report which I believe you were given a copy of,
staff's report; is that correct? Staff did find that the property had
adequate width for the construction of the dock, that the depth of the
water where the boat would be moored is sufficient, that the boatdock
will not interfere with navigation on the bay because the bay is a
ward -- a wide water body, and that there are unusual circumstances
which necessitate this extension, which is the fact that this is very
shallow water, and that the request is the minimum necessary, and
there is no negative impact on the environment.
Also, at the CCPC hearing, county staff testified that the length
of the walkway requested by Jim and Ellie is not unusual for the area.
So, what we are asking for is not atypical for Isle of Capri. As a
matter of fact, if you look -- and I know -- I apologize for the size
of this, but if you look over here on the adjoining bay, which is
Snook Bay, you can see several rather lengthy docks. In fact, one of
them is not on here, which is now 130 feet into the waterway.
So, it is not atypical for staff and the planning commission to
approve a boatdock extension in rough proportion to the one we are
asking, and, in fact, I would venture to say that the adjoining
property owners at Snook Bay can see this dock as well, so, you know
-- we all agree that you're going to see the dock. It's a question of
how much of an impact will that dock be.
Nevertheless, staff recommended denial and said, either dredge it
or build a community dock. Well, as you've already heard, dredging it
is not an alternative, and the letter that's in the record from the
DEP says that dredging is just not going to happen. Based on what
I've previously told you, our community dock is probably not going to
happen either because the state is just not ready to permit one, and
the property owners don't want one anymore due to the expense of going
through that process.
Mr. Scofield testified at the CCPC hearing -- Rocky is recognized
as an expert in permitting boatdocks and has regularly appeared before
the CCPC. In fact, the petitioner's attorney is using him as an
expert in another case.
Mr. Scofield testified that Mr. and Mrs. Hughes' dock is the
minimal length to get to deep enough water, that there is no negative
impact on the environment, and there is no negative impact on
navigation, and you can find that testimony on Pages 10 and 12 of your
transcript.
Mr. Scofield also testified that a community dock was not favored
by the state, and that dredging is not an alternative. You can find
that at Page 11.
Rocky testified that Jim and Ellie Hughes' dock will not
interfere with other people getting a boatdock. What prevents them
from getting a boatdock is the fact that they don't have -- they can't
get out far enough and stay within the riparian water rights to get to
deep enough water. However, if they do work with their neighbors in
either acquiring a lot or working together and combining the lot, they
can get out far enough, and we will not interfere with where that is,
but, you know, that is up to the DEP to decide whether or not that
will work.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- ask a question about that?
That -- that seemed to me to be the number nine issue in the
staff's report where the criterion is whether or not the proposed
location and design of the dock is such that it may infringe upon the
use of neighboring properties, including any existing dock structures.
It seemed to -- if I'm understanding you correctly, and that's what
I'm asking, is that it isn't the proposed location and design of this
dock that may infringe upon neighboring properties' ability to have
similar docks, it is the fact that your clients bought two lots, and,
therefore -- I don't think -- we have in our packet on Page 37 the
vortex map of how the -- how the riparian rights extend, and it's --
the difference here is the fact that your -- your clients own two
lots, therefore, they have a greater amount of riparian right.
Anybody else who gets two lots will still be able to have the
same kind of a boatdock, and they won't crisscross, and they won't get
out into the bay and impinge upon each other.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct, if they -- if they can acquire
enough riparian rights to get out deep enough, they can do it, and
they will -- we are not preventing anybody else from doing what they
want to do.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But they have to first purchase that silt or
whatever?
MR. YOVANOVICH: To be honest with you, I don't know if they -- I
think somebody already has gone out to the state and gotten that, but
yes, they would need to acquire that property to have enough -- to
have access to the water.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your point, quite simply, is that Mr.
Scofield's testimony did address that issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely.
We -- it's our -- if you read through the record, we've addressed
every one of the criteria, and Mr. Scofield did testify the structures
-- the minimum structure and will have minimum impact on the views.
In fact, we have had a chance to talk to DEP, and the reason that
the structure is where it is, it has to be five feet high, because
aquatic life underneath the water needs to have, you know, light get
to it. That's why we are up as high as we are; minimum DEP
requirement. The fence or the rail is going to be a rope rail, so it
would be a minimum impact there, instead of a wooden rail.
So, we are doing the minimum we can to impact anybody's view of
this, you know, walkway, and I need to point out, this walkway is 39
inches wide. It's not a pier, which everyone wants to be calling this
thing. It's 39 inches wide. It's on a single piling, and it's got,
obviously, a rope way because it's kind of narrow. You would need
some kind of security device to make sure you don't fall off, and
also, you've got to get out 130 feet in low water times to even get to
water. So -- and that would be a pretty substantial fall, so you need
some kind of railing.
We believe, in reviewing the record, there's plenty of competent
substantial evidence to support the planning commission's approval.
In fact, all you need under the case law is any competent and
substantial evidence to support their decision. We believe there's --
you know, there's ample -- we are not relying on the case law. We
believe that if you review the entire record, you will come to the
same conclusion as the planning commission, that the boatdock meets
all of your LDC criteria, has met all of -- is consistent with your
comprehensive plan, and there's competent substantial evidence to
support their decision, and I want to point out that Mr. and Mrs.
Hughes did agree at the planning commission that in the event dredging
or a community dock become a reality, they will fully participate in
that, and if they dredge, they will remove their dock and back it up,
and if it needs to be a community dock, they will allow their dock to
be the beginning of that community dock.
If you have any questions of me or of Rocky Scofield, I'd be
happy to have him answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one. Just a question about that
second representation that if ever there is a permit for a community
dock, what do you mean -- to what extent would they allow their dock
to be --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, we would, obviously, need -- I think it
would be only fair that they recover some of the costs of building the
dock and the permitting process of the dock, and we need to work out
some kind of association documents for maintenance of the dock so
everybody pays their fair share. That's what I mean by that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But assuming everybody pays equitably, the
physical structure could be the community dock?
MR. YOVANOVICH: If DEP would allow that, sure, we would allow
that to happen. We -- I don't know, to be honest with you. Nobody
knows what DEP will eventually say, but if it can be used, we will
allow it to be used.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other questions?
Seeing none, thank you.
Mr. Fernandez, how many speakers do we have?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Twelve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have 12. That being the number of speakers
and each one being afforded five minutes, that's one hour of
testimony. As I read through the minutes from the planning commission
meeting, not nearly that number of speakers were present at that time.
Mr. Weigel, I need a little bit of direction here. Since we are
not allowed to accept new testimony, per se --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what is the protocol for public speakers on
an item such as this?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, the Constantine directive is in effect
and will repeat that, and that is that this is not for the taking of
testimony or new evidence to sway this board, but it's a matter of any
comments of anyone who is a speaker would only be to reflect upon the
testimony and evidence that was placed before the planning commission
and is on review by this board today, and so I will assist you any way
I can to make sure that any speakers, if they stray, that we let them
know that they have strayed from the rather limited ability to address
the issues that they have today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it basically, if you're coming to
speak, you need to be pointing out something that's in the record
previously that you either support or disagree with? MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure how many speakers are
here on behalf of the petitioner against the boatdock, but I would
urge that anyone that is here, that they keep their comments to as
brief as possible. They don't need to use five minutes, so I think it
will go a lot faster than --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At this point, it's not so much a matter of
brevity but pertinence. They have to be pertinent to the document
that was created at the planning commission, whether they agree or
disagree with the points on that document and specifically what those
are. If your comments are outside of that, this forum does not allow
for it.
So, our hands are a little bit tied there. So, we are not going
to turn this into an open frenzy about this issue, and we are not
going to rehear the issue all over again.
So, with that being said, let's go ahead and begin calling the
public speakers.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I say one thing for the record?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's make it quick.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I will.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need some order established here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be real quick. I just want to say, for
the record, it's my opinion that the transcript is all you need to
hear. Mr. Saunders and I get to advocate the position. I don't think
it's the public's position to do that. That's all I wanted to state
for the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The first two speakers are George Moore and Cindy
Miller. Mr. Moore.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Moore, are you here?
And the person who was announced as the second speaker, if you
please would kind of hold position over by the door so we can move
through the speakers.
MR. MOORE: I did not speak at the last meeting. I was unable to
be here but my wife did, and in an effort to confine it to what has
gone on here, I want to try and clarify. A lot of numbers have been
thrown around here, but the dock is 360 feet long, and you folks, who
may have not seen the area, may visualize a dock projecting out into
the ocean more or less straight from a man's property. That's not
what happens here. His lot is in a corner there, and it cuts across
other people's lots. So, my lot, which is about 120 yards across the
bay, would look at the side of his dock as he crosses over two or
three other docks. Now, he acquired lately here another lot just next
to him just last year. The gentleman introduced that but kind of
mixed it all up as if they had owned two pieces of property all this
time. That's not true.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, is that relevant testimony on
the record? I just want to try to get it right the first time.
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I think it's relevant.
MR. MOORE: What I'm making is it cuts across. The longest dock
on the bay right now is about 60 feet. So, we are talking about six
times what it was in the past.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Cindy Miller and then Susan Middlebrook.
MS. MILLER: I'm Cindy Miller. I'm not only speaking for myself
today. I'm also speaking for absentee lot owners which run along
Pelican Street which are adjacent to my lot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have letters for them identifying '-
MS. MILLER: You have that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I'm sorry, identifying you as their agent?
MS. MILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Please proceed.
MS. MILLER: One of them was supposed to be present here today.
Anyway, I was at the hearing. I submitted the pictures. I was
not represented by a lawyer, unfortunately.
This lot -- I own Lot 77. Their lots are 84 and 85, which are to
my left and down the corner. Actually, they are five lots away at 60
foot across. This lot -- this dock is going to come from their land
point across five lots.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm really sorry to interrupt, but we
are not rehearing the issue. We're not hearing -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can't.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- explanations as much as I know you
want to get that out. Our only purpose under the law in this type of
rehearing is to hear whether or not the original hearing was done
properly or not, whether or not the decision was rendered, and we can
only consider the information that was provided there.
So, if you want to reference something that was provided there
that you don't think was paid attention to, that's fine, but we really
need you to tie it in to that hearing, not just offer information.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me try and be of some assistance, because
this can be very confusing, even on our end. It's very difficult to
say you have to base your decision only on what is written here and
what was presented there, because that's not normally how we do public
hearings.
So, let me offer a format suggestion for all of the speakers. As
you come up, express to us whether you agree or disagree with the
planning commission decision and based -- and the reason for that is
because something in this is either correct or incorrect. Anything
outside of that type of discussion, we cannot factor into our decision
today.
So, if I could ask for that kind of an approach, that would
probably help us narrow it down to where, by law, we have to make our
decision.
So, I apologize for the confusion. I know it's kind of an odd
process, but it's what we are restricted to.
MS. MILLER: What I disagree with is -- is the decision that they
made. I agree that there is a definite obstruction of view across my
property and five other properties, and I hope that you can change
this for us.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Susan Middlebrook and Miles Scofield.
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: I'm going to try and do what you're asking me,
I think.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to make sure
you do.
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: Okay, that's fine. I'm Susan Middlebrook.
If we refer to Page 7 of the testimony that you received, we have
a comment made by Mr. Richard Yovanovich, and it's about two-thirds of
the way down. If I could read it, it says that, representing Mr. and
Mrs. Hughes, is requesting a 159 foot boatdock extension from the
required 20 feet to 179 feet, a boatdock and a boat lifting facility.
This boatdock, as measured from the platted, single-family lot will be
359 feet. However, there's a sand deposit in front of the house, and
the petitioners, they have purchased the sand deposit from the state.
That's why we are measuring it from the edge of the sand deposit which
makes it 179 feet.
I agree with everything they are saying here. I disagree with
the dock. The reason why I disagree with it, this paragraph kind of
points it to -- I'm sorry, excuse me -- points out certain things for
me, personally.
The first one is that it is a 159 foot boatdock extension from
the mean high waterline of their submerged land leases that they have
purchased from the state.
I owned 50 percent of a real estate office on Isle of Capri for
16 years. I'm very familiar with the real estate practice on the
island, and I'm familiar with the type of waterfront --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are editorializing a little bit at
this point.
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: Okay, okay. But -- but different types of
water frontage is valued for different reasons, okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That was not a part of our record.
There's no discussion of that here.
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: Part of the record is that it's a sand deposit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: They bought a sandbar.
Now, if you want to go and follow the current, current zoning of
20 feet of boatdock, that's acceptable, but even going -- owning a
sandbar and going 20 feet is not enough room. They need another 179
feet or 159 feet. In my eyes, that's unreasonable, okay. That's the
point I want to make from here.
Also, the total length of the dock, 359 feet is not standard or
typical by any means for Isle of Capri.
If we refer to Page 23, about in the middle of the page, there's
a paragraph that states, the people who originally wanted the
community dock no longer want the community dock. They're not
advocating a community dock. I think that's important, that they
basically have said we do not want a community dock. The people most
likely to be impacted in the cove have consented to this dock as not
impacting their view and have no objection to it.
Again, I feel that is totally untrue because I am one of those
people, and I'm here to object. The other people that came are also
here to object, and there are several of us here today. So, I find
that statement to be totally not correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I don't have that in front
of me. Who made that statement?
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: That was made --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Yovanovich.
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: -- by Mr. Yovanovich --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: -- himself.
I could go and explain the reason of the view, if you would like,
but I don't want to stray from your testimony. I want to kind of
avoid that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, that gets a little outside of what we
can consider today.
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: All right. We'll go to Page 24 then.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are you talking -- Cindy, are you talking
about 24 on here because this --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Twenty-four of the actual minute numbers --
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: Of the transcript.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- not your agenda pages, but the pages of the
minutes themselves.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Page 22 of your packet.
MS. MIDDLEBROOK: On Page 24, about a third of the way down, we
have a comment by Commissioner Nelson, and if I could read it again.
It say, but if we are going to be out there another 100 feet, if they
simply were that unlucky, would we allow them to build a dock out 220
feet or 30 feet in order to get to water. There's no question they
need to build it out this far to get to water, but is it reasonable to
let people build a dock of any length, any length necessary to get to
water. It doesn't seem so to me, especially when they could -- when
somehow, maybe with our help, get the sand cleared out in front of all
those corner properties and would destroy the whole bay which is my
last point.
That is where we tried to come up with dredging or some
alternative solution. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Middlebrook.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Miles Scofield and then Ed Huegel.
MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Miles Scofield representing the
Hughes' in this case.
Just a few things real quick, the 359 foot dimension that's been
thrown out quite a bit, that's a walkway extending from their house
all the way out. What you're going to see is there's a mangrove
fringe that extends 25 feet out from the mean high water mark. The
dock extending out from the mangroves is 154 feet. That's what is out
there. This is accreted land that they have acquired. The rest of
that -- anything above the mean high water mark is considered uplands.
So, it's not a sandbar they've purchased. The sandbar belongs to
the state.
The railing, just real quickly, the railing is mandated by the
state.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The railing is not an issue.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. All right. Okay. We said that before.
The other thing is, is we had a map here earlier that was not
brought in that we entered into evidence earlier at the planning
commission. It showed what Susan was talking about. It's -- the
adjoining people on this corner are the ones that don't object.
Obviously, the one -- the other people down, but the other people
have given their consent. That's what that was talking to, and that's
all I've got to say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Scofield.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ed Huegel and Ellie Hughes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Huegel --
MR. HUEGEL: My name is Ed Huegel. I live on Isle of Capri. I
have a little map I'd like to give --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If it wasn't entered in the planning
commission, we can't consider it today, sir.
MR. HUEGEL: Well, this is exactly what you have up there only
it's smaller. It gives you a definite thing of what --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I'm just telling you the law is we
can't consider it if it wasn't entered at the planning commission.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we can look at the one we have.
MR. HUEGEL: Well, I've got one similar to that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, it's the same sort of map.
MR. HUEGEL: I think we own Lot 87. There is no lots available
to purchase to give me more land to build a dock. There's one lot
that's available, I believe 79. That's not for sale. My daughter
lives on Lot 80, and my son lives on Lot 81. We are all opposed to
this because of the view and because it's a single thing for one
person where nine people are involved in this neighborhood that should
be considered as well as the one person coming for the dock.
That's about all I have to say. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Huegel.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ellie Hughes and then Jim Hughes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ellie Hughes is going to waive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Jim Hughes and then Steve Cohan.
MR. HUGHES: My name is Jim Hughes.
There's a lot of things said here today. I'll keep it real
short. Ed mentioned that his son and daughter live in that corner,
and he's concerned about them. His son has signed a consent for us to
build next to his riparian rights, and his daughter's husband has
signed our petition that we brought into the commissioners' meeting.
So, they are both looking at our dock positively.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Steve Cohan and then Julie Wood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the balance of the board, the reason
that's pertinent is that there were comments made by Mr. Huegel about
his son and daughter in the record, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got it.
MR. COHAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I came down here
again because I originally was one of the people who stood against the
Hughes' when they were going for a community dock.
Just to make things within reference to the previous thing, I
think staff was being extremely unreasonable or at least not living in
the real world. Isle of Capri is part of the Rookery Bay estuary
area. There's no way in hell that we will ever be able to dredge, let
alone blow out a single grain of sand there within the legalities of
the law.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's called prop dredging. That's about the
only way you're going to get it done.
MR. COHAN: And let's put it this way, there are quite a few
people who live on the Isle of Capri who would immediately call you
folks and have me arrested if I were to even consider trying that in
building my own dock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. COHAN: And I don't disagree with it although we do have
quite a problem with -- may become a problem in the future time for
you guys to consider.
As far as the community dock goes, it's not a realistic thing.
The ability to get a group of people together to build it in the first
place seems to have been something that wasn't going very strong, let
alone maintain something that would hold up and maintain value and not
become an eyesore.
Lastly, it should be pointed out in reference to the record that
this is not really a dock. It's a walkway, and the walkway they are
building out to a point where they are going to have a boat lift is
smaller than those used in Corkscrew Swamp. So, please try and
consider that -- when you're looking at the testimony and every time
you see the word dock, try and think to yourself about walking across
your tabletop there in front of you in order to get to a boat lift
where you're going to pull T shape into it, because I remember someone
here mentioned how would they access said lift. Well, that's all I
know about it. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Julie Wood and then Butch Morgan.
MS. WOOD: I'm Julie Wood for the record. I'm the lot owner, Lot
86 directly next to Lot 84 and 85. The Hughes' dock will go directly
in front of my property. I have no problem with them doing this
whatsoever. We were involved in the community dock situation from the
very beginning. We were told by the county that since the property is
not zoned multifamily, we could not put a multifamily dock in there.
The state has allowed us -- they say that there's not going to be
any environmental impact to the area. There's already boats there
being used. There will -- there's no navigational hazard, and I would
hope that you would agree with what the state has recommended. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Butch Morgan and then Troy Zinser.
MR. SCOFIELD: Butch Morgan has declined to speak.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Zinser then, and following Mr. Zinser --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Troy Zinser is the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ZINSER: Thank you. Excuse me. The reason why I'm here in
support of Mr. Hughes, I've been in front of this very board to get my
own dock approved at one point. They have done everything that has
been asked by the state. As far as what the planning commission voted
on, everything was checked. Everything was -- I mean, they are doing
everything that everybody has required.
The planning commission, no offense to you, Mr. Hancock seems to
know a little bit about prop dredging, so I think he knows what's
going on, but I think the planning commission is very well aware of
the difficulties there is in building a dock like that, and I'll tell
you right now, it is very difficult. The state, when they came out to
Isle of Capri when I built my dock, they literally sent two girls that
dived in the water and counted the blades of sea grass. You cannot
have more than 1 percent coverage of sea grass.
So, the state is very familiar with what you can and can't do and
are very definite on what they will let you and will not let you do,
and they will never ever let anybody dredge that place. They'll never
ever let a community dock be built because it's going to be too many
boats.
The testimony that was given in that last hearing, I think, was
very conclusive that that is the only way that that dock is ever going
to get built, and I think that the planning commission, because of the
staff that they have and the members that they have, are familiar with
that area and familiar with the types of docks that are built, and in
regards to staff recommendation that they deny it, they based it on
the fact that they felt that it would be better off dredging and a
community dock. That's not going to happen. That's not feasible.
It's never going to happen.
So, for them to deny their approval or to recommend disapproval
of the -- of that petition originally was -- is -- they are
recommending disapproval and they can't because --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you're saying it's based on two things
that can't happen.
MR. ZINSER: That can't happen, and I think the planning
commission, on their vote, looked at the planning -- the staff and
said, okay, we are going to recommend the approval of that dock
because what you're saying cannot happen -- or may happen cannot
happen, so, therefore, we are going to go and approve this petition
above and beyond what the staff recommendation was, and let me tell
you something, those are tax paying waterfront citizens down there,
and I don't care if two people next to them want to build docks, if
you're not letting them build a dock, the people next to them, they
can't build it either. So, you're just going to let nobody build a
dock.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Zinser.
Before closing the public hearing, are there any other questions
of the petitioners that the board wants to direct? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there one more?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, Mr. Zinser was the last speaker.
With no questions of the petitioner, I'll close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I've looked at this -- the
record and researched it, read every word on it, and I'm persuaded
that the staff recommendation was originally correct, especially in
regards to Item Number 7 concerning the view. I think that sufficient
substantial evidence was presented at the -- at planning commission
meeting, and I simply don't agree with their conclusion. I think the
evidence shows that the dock should not be built.
Therefore, I'm going to make a motion that we uphold the appeal
and deny the boatdock permit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to disagree with you and
mainly because I'm not sure -- I know you referenced staff
recommendation, but as I reviewed the prior hearing and heard
different points today, I don't really hear anything. There's the
view issue, and there's the other dock issue. The other dock issue
has become a nonissue, I think, and I really didn't hear nor read
compelling evidence on the view issue from the original hearing, and
short of those, I think we need to deny the appeal and uphold CCPC.
You know, it's not about personal preference here. It's about
reviewing the record and seeing whether it meets standards or not, and
it does, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm -- for the most part, this is a tough one.
You know, I would like to look at this individually without having to
rely on the planning commission minutes, because I think maybe there
are other things, but the one flaw in the staff report, I think, is
that the recommendations are not really possibilities. So, to use
them as a crutch to deny, I think, becomes an error, but since the
recommendation of the planning commission was to approve the original
petition, from what I've seen today and what I've read in the record,
I think that there's competent substantial evidence to allow for the
dock.
The one issue on view, Item Number 7 refers to, is the structure
of minimal dimensions. The width, the profile is dictated by the
staff, not by us, and the end of the dock are about as minimal as you
can get for simply having a dock. It can't get much smaller than that
and even be safe or even be sufficient for construction.
So, I have a difficulty seconding the motion.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for the county attorney.
Let me get it straight.
Is the question -- wait, let me see. As I understand it, the
issue before us is whether or not there is competent substantial
evidence to overturn the planning commission determination. Have I
got that backwards?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, slightly backwards.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: What it is, is in your review, as appellate
tribunal, your review is to see -- to determine if there was, in fact,
substantial and competent evidence for the planning commission to have
reached the decision that it did.
To overturn -- and the second standard was, does it comply with
the Land Development Code. To overturn that, you will be making a
finding that there is not substantial and competent evidence for the
planning commission to have reached the determination that it did.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I don't see how we can do that. I
don't see how we can find -- I can't find in the record that the
planning commission had no competent basis on which to make its
recommendation. I think that there was competent evidence before the
planning commission.
So, based on that, I'm going to have to support the planning
commission.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think the view issue -- I have to agree,
there is one property, Lot 77, that is really going to -- if you stand
on the center line of the property looking straight out at the end of
the dock, but the distance, the orientation of the bay, the
orientation of the homes on Lot 79 -- or on 78 -- I think there's a
home on 78 that's actually angled, to me, works a little bit against
that argument. That's the one that leaves me some concern, but it was
discussed at the planning commission, and I don't find enough evidence
to overturn the planning commission's recommendation on the view
aspect.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if there's not a second
for the existing motion, I'll be happy to make a substitute motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second on the motion?
Seeing none, the motion dies for lack of a second.
Is there a substitute motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, recognizing there is a
competent substantial record from the CCPC meeting and nothing
different was brought up during the appeal, I make a motion we deny
the appeal and uphold the decision of the Collier County Planning
Commission.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I will second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion and a second. Discussion on
the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one, the planning
commission decision is upheld.
That was Item 13(A)(2).
Continuation of Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 97-393, RE PETITION CU-97-16, BRUCE E. TYSON, OF WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. REPRESENTING THE WILLOW RUN TRUST,
REGARDING EARTH MINING OPERATIONS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 11,
12, 13 AND 14, T50S, R26E, CONSISTING OF 200 ACRES, MORE OR LESS -
ADOPTED
*** Wewre to item -- going to go back to Item 13(A)(1 I need a
motion to be untabled.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mot --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to untable it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Everyone has been handed, and I'll provide
mine for the court reporter for the record, a list of what I believe
are the beneficiaries of the -- thank you, the court reporter has one
-- beneficiaries of the existing trust that owns the land now; that
is, the seller of the property. After reviewing that, if each board
has had the opportunity to review that, does anyone find the need to
declare a conflict of interest?
Seeing none, we will resume the public hearing. We've completed
staff's presentation. I think the term used earlier today, a no
brainer on another issue with Commissioner Constantine, this one falls
in a similar vein.
If you look at the perimeter of what is actually to be excavated,
the property may be a thousand feet from a home, but actually, the
distance from that home to what is going to be physical excavation
operation is more than double that. MR. NINO: Yes, that's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, we have over 2,000 feet to the nearest
home. I don't see a lot of difficulty with this issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me either.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, is there anything else you wish
to add, Mr. Varnadoe?
MR. VARNADOE: I'd just like to clarify one thing, in it was our
error in not revealing the beneficiaries of the buying -- the buyers'
trust, but if you want to change your policy, you've got to do it,
there is no requirement anywhere that the seller -- if the seller is a
trust or a corporation or anything else, a partnership, that those
names be disclosed. If you want to do that, we're, obviously, happy
to comply, but it's not your staff's fault. It was our fault not to
disclose the buyer, but there's no requirement to disclose the seller
other than who the seller is by name if it's a trust.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sometime prior to November of 1994, we
made that direction and made it very clear. So, if we need to
reiterate it to our staff to make that requirement for future
petitioners --
MR. NINO: I believe that direction, at least -- I believe staff
understood that direction to mean the beneficiaries of the trust of
the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We need to expand that and we need to
expand it in the Land Development --
MR. VARNADOE: And that's the same information I had, Mr.
Constantine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and we need to expand it in the Land
Development Code that the trust -- the individual elements or
individual persons contained in the seller's trust need to be
identified also. Otherwise, we simply cannot make a conflict
determination.
It's kind of easy for me, but those of you that have other jobs
MR. VARNADOE: I wasn't arguing. I just wanted to point that
out, that that's what we've been traveling under.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a real good point, and I apologize
for not noticing it, frankly, sooner than I did, Mr. Varnadoe, and I
appreciate your responding so quickly, sincerely.
MR. VARNADOE: I talked to Mr. Quinby, and the list you have are
the names he gave me that are in the seller's trust.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to close the public hearing. Is
there a motion on the item?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Item #13B1
RESOLUTION 97-394, RELATING TO PETITION CU-96-17, FOR THE FIRST
EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH AND RELATED FACILITIES AND
CHILD CARE CENTER IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION 96-581 ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 12, 1996 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Seeing none, we are to Item 13(B)(1),
Petition CU-96-17, request for first extension of a conditional use.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, this first extension, has
there been anything that changed since we originally passed the
conditional use?
MR. NINO: No, there has not been, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have public speakers on this, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Item #1382
RESOLUTION 97-395, RELATING TO PETITION CU-96-16, FOR THE FIRST
EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING
DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION 96-513 ADOPTED ON
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Item 13(B)(2) looks relatively similar to
me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, anything change since this
was '-
MR. NINO: No change, except this one is a lot closer to
permitting. They are in here for their final SDP.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion -- I'm sorry. Do we have a
motion on that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll close the public hearing.
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have no speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, now I'll close the public
hearing.
I'm sorry, Commissioner --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Item #14
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - CORPS OF ENGINEERS RE EIS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** We are to staff communications.
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, thank you. One communication, and that is the
popular, ever popular Army Corps of Engineers memorandum of
understanding regarding the EIS for Southwest Florida will be an
agenda item next week under county attorney. This is an advertised
item, but not appearing under public hearing, but we have placed an
advertisement in the newspapers that will appear tomorrow indicating
that it will be heard at next week's meeting and identifying that it's
under the county attorney agenda.
I can also state that the word sustainable has been taken out of
the document wherever it was found and will be confirming today
whether the Corps, representative for the Corps will be in attendance
next week to answer any questions, and also, further information, of
course, is that Lee County is having their advertised public hearing
on the matter today. I've been in contact with the Lee County
attorney on and off in that regard, and he's going to give me an
update as to what transpires with Lee County today, also.
I want to thank Commissioner Hancock and Stan Litsinger and Bill
Lorenz for their assistance to our office in this regard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to say on the issue of
sustainable, I've been called by the governor's office to ask for me
to serve on the governor's commission for a sustainable South Florida.
I'm going to be considering what the time commitments are, but I just
thought it was so relevant to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your neck.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was asked as well, and I have declined.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Item #15
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS - UPDATE FROM FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES RE DUES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commission Mac'Kie, under board
communication.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, earlier, my annual Christmas
party that, of course, is always open to the entire general public was
mentioned, and I just want to mention, this year it's going to be held
at Commissioner Hancock's house.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And good luck drinking the pool water because
that's all I'm serving.
I have an update from the Florida Association of Counties, and
I'll just go ahead and read this.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: FACO?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: FAC, Florida Association of Counties, not
FACO.
It was addressed to me, a top priority of the Association has
been to convince the legislature to meet its responsibility to fund
the state's judiciary.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As you well know, the burgeoning cost of the
court system has inappropriately fallen to counties in the past 25
years. The trend is a direct conflict of what the voters were told in
1972 when Article V was passed to create a unified state court system.
Today, county property taxpayers fund more than half of the total
cost. Over six hundred million dollars are diverted from essential
local services to fund the state's judiciary.
This year, FAC was successful in reversing the trend. The 1997
legislature appropriated nine million dollars to partially reimburse
counties. This is a recurring appropriation which FAC will work
vigorously to increase next year. In addition, a bill was passed to
create an Article V Trust Fund which, beginning in fiscal year
1998-99, and then over four years, will redirect at least fifty
million dollars of state generated revenue to counties.
The enclosure reflects the funding your county can expect from
these legislative successes. I offer this victory as an example of
your association dues at work.
On another front, FAC is working intensively to bring this issue
forward during constitution revision. The next few months of the CRC
process are critical. FAC's message has been consistently delivered
at each and every CRC hearing across the state. The state must assume
financial responsibility for its judiciary. We also ask that you
continue to urge your legislators' support on this issue. FAC
continues its push for additional funding during the '98 legislative
session.
Signed Vivian Zaricki, executive director.
The attachment, which I'll enter for the record, shows in fiscal
year 1997-98, Collier County receiving a total of $55,000. That
amount will ratchet up incrementally through the year 2001, 2002 to
$243,000, and we can only hope as FAC continues to lobby at the state
level, that our taxpayers will benefit more and more from the state
stepping up in its responsibility in Article V Funding.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Total over that five years?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Total over that five years, $702,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, we talk about organizations. I know we
withdrew from FACO at one point for the simple reason that we weren't
getting any benefit. I wanted to bring to your attention that FAC
dues are being returned tenfold on an annual basis because of activity
like this, and John Manning in Lee County is the president of FAC, and
I'm a director. So, we have a presence on the board, and hopefully,
it means more of these things will come home and our taxpayers will
benefit.
That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you bringing
that forward. You know, if we had the proper people in the
legislature, perhaps we could get all of our Article V monies refunded
to us at some point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couldn't agree with you more, Mr.
Norris, couldn't agree with you more.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In the very near future, our voters may have
an opportunity to look at that, so -- any further questions or
answers?
What a good day. Thank you, kids.
Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda
be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "WATERWAYS OF NAPLES UNIT TWO" - SUBJECT
TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
AGREEHENT WITH WILKISON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SHELLABARGER PARK IN IHMOKALEE - NOT
TO EXCEED $92,500.00 (RFP #96-2607)
Item #16A3
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND GOOD WHEELS, INC.
Item #16B1
BID #97-2711 FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL COHPONENTS - BIDS AWARDED TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIVE BIDDER AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, ON AN
ITEM-BY-ITEM BASIS; IF AN ITEM IS NOT AVAILABLE FROM THE LOW BIDDER,
THE SECOND LOW BIDDER HAY BE UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE
Item #1682
INTERAGENCY AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, FOR
CONTINUED USE OF INMATE LABOR IN ROAD MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Item #1683
BID #97-2718 FOR ANNUAL CHEMICALS - AWARDED TO THE EIGHT VENDORS AS
INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #1684
BID #97-2689 FOR JACK AND BORE OPERATIONS - AWARDED TO CABANA
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $10,000.00
Item #1685
BID #97-2698 FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SUPPLIES - AWARDED TO THE
ATTACHED LIST OF VENDORS AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G1
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 is no miscellaneous correspondence to be filed.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
BY: Dawn Breehne