BCC Minutes 01/13/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1998
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT: David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to convene the
January 13th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
This morning we have Reverend Father Tim Navin from St. Peter's
Catholic Church here for the invocation. If you would please stand
and remain standing for the pledge.
Father Navin?
FATHER NAVIN: Good morning.
Let us pray. Almighty and Eternal God, you have revealed your
glory to all the nations. God of power and might, wisdom and justice,
through your authority, is rightly administered, laws are enacted and
judgment is decreed. Let the light of your divine wisdom direct the
deliberations of this county board and shine forth in all its
proceedings and the laws framed for our just rule in government. May
they seek to preserve peace, promote national happiness, tranquility,
prosperity, and continue to bring us the blessings of liberty.
We humbly ask this in the name of the ineffable mystery that is
your steadfast love for us and for all the people of the world. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Father Navin.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman.
We have one item to add to the agenda. This is Item 10(B),
resolution requesting dialogue between the Immokalee farmworkers and
growers, requested by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, are there any other
changes?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing for me. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I have no changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am, nor do I.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve the agenda
and the consent agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Approval of the minutes? We have none.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't have any.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 19-25, 1998 AS DR. MARTIN
LUTHER KING, JR. WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Proclamations and service awards.
The first proclamation this morning, Mr. Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is Lorenzo Williams with us? Come on
up. I have a proclamation for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. week. Come
on this way and we'll get everybody on TV land to get a look at you
while I read this, and then I know you guys have some different
activities going on. After I get done you can read those.
Whereas, the Congress of the United States of America has
designated the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. as a national
holiday; and
Whereas, the President of the United States signed legislation
authorizing Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday with observances
to commence on January 19, 1998; and
Whereas, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received national and
international recognition for his stirring struggle against injustice
and his leadership in espousing brotherhood, self-discipline, and
non-violence; and
Whereas, the Collier County branch of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People will hold a commemorative
celebration of Dr. King's birthday by sponsoring the Martin Luther
King, Jr. Day Parade on Monday, January 19, 1998, honoring his
lifelong efforts to achieve freedom for all.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January
19th through 25, 1998, be designated as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Week in Collier County, Florida, and urge all citizens to remember Dr.
King's outstanding accomplishments by participating in commemorative
celebrations to be held during Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Week.
Done and ordered this 13th day of January, 1998. Board of County
Commissioners. Barbara B. Berry -- I just like saying that --
Chairman.
Madam Chairman, motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the proclamation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause)
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING JANUARY 11-17, 1998 AS STOP! RED LIGHT
RUNNING WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next proclamation on our agenda, Hr. Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we can have Ed Kant come forward. Ed is
the chairman of the Collier County Community Traffic Safety Team.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We've got some more folks coming up for
this one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Here comes the rest of the team.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does this proclamation have anything to do
with the dozen or so officers on Airport Road this morning? MR. KANT: Quite conceivable.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Whereas, disregarding traffic control
devices is a leading cause of urban crashes, representing 22 percent
of the total number of crashes according to information from the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and has an estimated economic
impact of $7 billion based on data from the U.S. Department of
Transportation; and
Whereas, red light running costs in the State of Florida in 1996
were estimated at 379 million in economic loss, which included medical
costs, time off work, insurance hikes, property damage, and so forth;
and
Whereas, red light running violations in the state for 1996
resulted in 11,661 crashes causing 16,260 personal injuries; and
Whereas, railroad grade crossing crashes in Florida have
increased from 95 in 1995 to 102 in 1996; and
Whereas, stopping red light running and its economic and personal
losses is totally within the control of drivers; and
Whereas, stopping red light running is both a state and county
priority to reduce loss of life and economic liability; and
Whereas, the Collier County Community Traffic Team declares its
support of the national Stop! Red Light Running Campaign sponsored by
the Federal Highway Administration; and
Whereas, the Collier County CTST will support a Stop! Red Light
Running Week with area-wide selective enforcement of red light running
violations in an effort to create public awareness of the hazards of
disregarding traffic signals; and
Whereas, the goal of the Collier County Community Traffic Safety
Team is to reduce the number and severity of traffic crashes.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January llth to 17th,
1998, be designated as Stop! Red Light Running Week, and urge all
citizens to recognize this event by pledging to approach intersections
and railroad grade crossings with due caution and to stop for red
light signals.
Done and ordered this 13th day of 1998 by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And, Ms. Chairman, I would like to move to accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
MR. KANT: If I may, commissioners. On behalf of the Collier
County Community Traffic Safety Team, thank you for declaring Stop!
Red Light Running Week in Collier County this week.
Collier County is in the top twenty. Unfortunately, the top
twenty refers to counties with the highest crash rates in the State of
Florida. Although the national and state figures cited in the
proclamation are staggering, they lose their punch in the context of
what's happening somewhere else. If you'll permit me a moment to
provide some figures on what's happening right here in Collier County,
in 1990 Collier County recorded 4,490 crashes. By 1994 that number
had grown to 5,284. In 1996, the most recent year for which we have
full figures, the total was 5,391. That's somewhere in the
neighborhood of twenty-two a day. Of these totals, the most common
contributing causes were not related, not related to roadway design
maintenance or operation. However, they were related to driver
behavior. The most common cause cited in police reports is careless
driving. It is closely followed by failure to yield the right of way,
improper lane change, following too closely, and, what we're here for
today, disregarding traffic signals.
With the growth of our county-wide roadway network, there's been
a concomitant growth in vehicle miles traveled and the number of
crashes as a consequence of this growth. In addition, there's an
enormous increase in the number of roadway incidents related to what
is now commonly called, and I quote, road rage. Although these
incidents range from mere hollering at other drivers to raising a fist
-- although many times with only four fingers clenched -- to the
extreme of murder and mayhem committed on drivers perceived to have
committed some unknown offense.
The Community Traffic Safety Team is grateful that you have
recognized its efforts as one of the factors in raising Collier
County's citizens' awareness of their driving habits and of our
concern for safe operation of both motorized and non-motorized
vehicles.
Thank you again for your interest and your dedication to
providing a safe and efficient transportation system for the citizens
of Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good creative writing, too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was giving bonus points for the word
"concomitant"
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I haven't heard that since
Commissioner Volpe was here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we all better hang these where we can
use them as a daily reminder.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Say the rearview mirror, maybe?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. Right.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 12, 1998 AS COLLIER COUNTY
SAFE BOATING WEEK - ADOPTED
Our next proclamation. Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a pleasure this morning to read a
proclamation regarding safe boating week. And is Mr. Lee Lyon,
President of Marine Industries, here? Mr. Lyon, if I could ask you --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Duke, you come up too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and your entourage. I see Duke back
there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think Duke should come up, for heaven's
sake. He's an icon of the marine industry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you would be so kind as to come forward
and face the audience. It's my pleasure this morning to read into the
record the following proclamation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why don't you turn around so the people at
home can see who you are?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whereas, boating is a major recreational
activity of Collier County; and
Whereas, boating is enjoyed by citizens of all ages; and
Whereas, boating is participated in by residents and visitors
alike; and
Whereas, boating is deserving of the attention of safety on the
water; and
Whereas, boating is enhanced by the practice of safety on the
water; and
Whereas, boating in a safe manner benefits everyone; and
Whereas, it is appropriate to recognize the value of safe boating
education by designating Collier County Safe Boating Week.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January
12th, 1998, be designated as Collier County Safe Boating Week to
encourage the people in Collier County to become familiar with safe
boating procedures and to practice safe boating in the waters of
Collier County.
Done and ordered this 13th day of January, 1998. Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Barbara Berry, Chairman.
Commissioners, I would like to move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What an appropriate tie.
MR. LYON: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now you know who is the real industry part
of Marine Industries.
MR. LYON: If we can take just a moment of the commissioners'
time. We certainly appreciate being here, but not only as a resident
of Collier County but also as the president of the Marine Industries
Association for the State of Florida.
In November we completed an economic study, which I think has a
direct bearing on one of the reasons we're here today. As a direct
economic impact to Collier County, it was proven out that we have a
$150,579,678 economic impact to Collier County each year. This is for
the year 1996/'97 fiscal year. The total employment that is directly
impacted with that is 1,810 people representing 218 companies.
we're quite pleased with this and we think the county should be as
well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for being here. I'd be remiss
if I didn't take the opportunity to point out and remind everyone
that, if you're on the water, whether it be a dinghy or a personal
watercraft or a million dollar yacht, and you haven't taken a safe
boating course, you're part of the problem. Get out there. Do it.
Get educated. It keeps people alive.
MR. LYON: Thank you.
MR. FERREIRA: I would like to take one moment to invite
everybody to our annual boat show at the Naples Airport. It'll start
January the 15th and run through the 18th. We have various exhibitors
that will be teaching boating safety on the water itself. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. I appreciate all the effort you
put forth on behalf of this industry.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 11-17, 1998 AS PURPLE
MARTIN WEEK - ADOPTED
And our last proclamation today is Mr. Darragh, or, I'm sorry,
Pam Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I'm going to ask Mr. Darragh to come
up and accept the proclamation, if you would.
This proclamation reads -- and if you'll just face the camera
while I do.
MR. DARRAGH: Will do, Pammie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How are ya?
Whereas, in a very short time, thousands of our very beautiful
feathered friends, the Purple Martins will return from their winter
home in Brazil; and
Whereas, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to
enable them to nest and rear their young; and
Whereas, the Florida Legislature has designated Collier County
the Purple Martin Capital of Florida; and
Whereas, the Conservancy Purple Martin Society is desirous of
urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable
winged creatures by placing said houses on their property; and
Whereas, during the period of January 11 through 17, 1998, the
Conservancy Purple Martin Society will endeavor to alert the public to
how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the insect and
mosquito population.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January 11
through 17, 1998, be designated as Purple Martin Week in Collier
County and urge all citizens to join with the Conservancy Purple
Martin Society to show their concern for these valuable and friendly
winged creatures and learn to protect and preserve them.
Done and ordered this 13th day of January, 1998, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Barbara Berry, Chairman.
I am glad to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor?
Carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MR. DARRAGH: All members of the Conservancy Purple Martin
Society wish to express their appreciation to the commissioners and
all employees of Collier County for their recognition.
The birds will be returning from Brazil during the month of
January, a 7,000 mile trip. They will be nesting as far north as
Manitoba, Canada.
We wish to express our appreciation in a more positive manner.
Members of our society, primarily William Dietrich and Kenneth
Schwartz, have erected a large array of Purple Martin houses and
gourds at the Collier County Extension Service buildings on Immokalee
Road. It was visited by a video camera crew from the PBS program,
"Bird Watch" with Don and Lillian Stokes. This show is transmitted on
Channel 3 on Saturday at 3:30 p.m. This is a highly watched program
by nature lovers. Our society is very pleased that we have increased
the exposure of Collier County to a large segment of PBS broadcasting.
Our society will be exhibiting at the Collier County Fair on Saturday,
January 17th in the home economics tent. We will have literature and
houses on display. Our meetings are held on the third Monday of every
month at Shoney's Restaurant on the east Trail at 11:30 in the
morning. For information, please call 455-0201 or 455-4330. And
thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Personal note. We've had a Martin house for some twenty-five
years, and it's a great source of entertainment. If you've never had
one or been around them, it's really a lot of fun. So, I can attest
to the fact -- I believe Collier County should be the Purple Martin
capital because it seems like there's more and more of these houses
available.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the Conservancy have a -- a typical
or schematic of what a Purple Martin house is; can they --
MR. DARRAGH: It's usually a limited structure with doors that
can be raised and lowered, because during the time that the birds are
mating and raising their young, you should take a look and see if
they're all right, make sure there's no predators in there. And also,
the Purple Martin Association in Edinburgh, Pennsylvania, at the
Edinburgh University, sends out a bulletin to all members asking how
many birds were arriving, how many birds laid eggs, how many of the
eggs hatched and how many of the birds fledged, and they keep track of
this all over the country.
As I mentioned, please try to watch that PBS show at 3:30
Saturday. It will have -- sometimes it has our Martins in it,
sometimes it doesn't. But at least you'll see them every now and
then. It's been on since last June or July.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Usually houses are a limited structure
because they're cooler. And they should be able to be taken down and
raised on telescopic poles, or on a lanyard or a crank-up system.
They're not too expensive. They run -- the whole rig would run around
between $60.00 and maybe $265, depending on how complex you decide to
use a set-up.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Darragh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And next on our agenda are service awards.
And it's my pleasure this morning to be able to present to Mr. Kevin
Hendricks from Real Property -- is Kevin here? Come forward, please,
for ten years of service.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much, Kevin, for enduring for
ten years, meetings and so forth.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In seriousness, our Real Property
Department is one of the best in the county, if you ask me, because
you guys do outstanding, very professional work. As a real estate
lawyer, I'll tell you, you do great work.
MR. HENDRICKS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Another ten-year veteran is Juan Ortega from
EHS.
Juan?
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much. Appreciate your time.
And our last ten-year veteran today is Valetie Thorsen from EHS.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd put EHS at least up there with Real
Property.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Talk about some great work. They do some
seriously great work, don't they?
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our five-year veteran, Eugene Troutman.
Is Eugene here?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There he is.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Eugene is in the Road and Bridge Department.
He makes sure our roads are in good shape. Thank you so much. There's
your pin and your certificate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations, Eugene.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And our last five-year veteran in the Parks
and Recreation Department is Robert Zastempowski.
Is that close; was that pretty good?
Thank you so much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Robert.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That concludes our presentations and the fun
part of our agenda this morning.
Before we proceed, I would like to note a change in our
agenda, and kind of a procedural change. Each chairman, when they
come to the board, they have a little bit different kind of thing that
they like to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quirk, they call it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Quirk. That's about right, quirk, depending
on who's doing it.
At any rate, what I would like to ask each of you, if you are
planning to speak to an item on the agenda, that you register to speak
prior to that item being heard. What we're trying to avoid is people
jumping up during the item. And it's a little distracting, if nothing
else, to have people running around trying to sign slips and be able
to speak to an issue. We'd like to know ahead of time how many people
are going to speak to an issue. And so if you can sign the slip prior
to the item being heard, in other words, we're not saying you have to
be here at 9:00 to speak and register for the items, but what we are
saying is that, prior to that item, you have an agenda, they're
available in the hallway, watch for that item. And prior to it being
heard, you need to have signed up to speak to that issue. So it's
just -- I just wanted to remind everyone of that little bit of a
change.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I assume that includes public
comment at the end of the day because -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- sometimes we end up getting into some
type of a debate situation where somebody is responding --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to something somebody else said, and
that's just not productive.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. No. That's the same -- it's the same
issue. If you wish to speak during that part of the agenda, then you
should have registered to speak prior to that time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Item #8B1
STAFF RECOHMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE JAIL COHMITTEE AND INITIATE
FUNDING ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOHMENDATIONS IN THE
UPDATE OF THE INTEGRATIVE CORRECTIONS STATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN -
APPROVED W/CHANGES
Having said that, we'll move along then to Public Works.
Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, commissioners. For the record,
Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director.
You had asked us back in September of last year to have the
County Administrator form a team of individuals, county staff,
citizens' committee staff, to look at whether or not the
recommendations in the V Group's report, the Update of the Integrative
Corrections Strategic Development Plan, was a cost feasible plan in
terms of the capital improvement program recommended in that report.
Since September the jail committee has met. On that committee have
been members from the Productivity Committee, the Chamber ADC Council,
County Administrator's agency staff, Sheriff's agency staff, judicial
body agency staff on there. The recommendations are summarized in the
executive summary for you. The key items are, first of all, the level
of service standard. The current level of service is 2.4 beds per
thousand of the peak population. The V Group, in their analysis of
jail trends over the last six years, identified that standard as
varied somewhat over the last few years, and they've recommended that
it be adjusted upward to reflect more the historical trends over the
last six years of jail population, peak and monthly averages. That is
recommended to be revised up to 2.65 per thousand. The information we
gave you back in September regarding the cost and the number of beds,
240 additional beds for the Naples Jail Center and an additional 20
beds for the Immokalee Jail Center, those costs were already based on
the 2.65 per thousand number.
If you recall from the executive summary that we presented to you
in September, one of the findings was that jail only accounts for
about one in twenty offenders as a sanction. The other nineteen
offenders are somewhere in the criminal justice system, in the system,
somewhere using an alternative to incarceration program or being
processed through that system.
A very important recommendation is Number 2, which is to continue
in a very proactive and regular, ongoing meeting of the Public Safety
Coordinating Council. The task of that council -- which is chaired by
the board chairman -- is to analyze, look at trends, determine where
the system, the criminal justice system can be fine-tuned to minimize
the need for additional jail beds in the future.
One of your concerns previously stated is that you don't want an
obsolete facility by the time we finish construction in the year 2004,
2005. Well, the report includes a couple of things. One is, we can
quickly expand another 128 beds at the Immokalee Jail Center. What
we're asking you to let us proceed with today is the design of a 192
bed replacement of the Immokalee Jail Center, but it will be designed
to easily accommodate two more pods of minimum and medium security
housing out there. But that Public Safety Coordinating Council really
has the task of making sure that all the other alternatives to
incarceration are working effectively to minimize when we would need
that housing and how quickly we would need that housing. That's
Recommendation Number 2.
Number 3 is the funding of a criminal justice information system.
I spoke to Mark Middlebrook, the deputy court administrator for this
county, who indicated that right now their plan is to temporarily
piggyback on the Lee County system until such time that they can
expand that database for Collier County, which would be used by all of
the groups involved in the criminal justice system. The importance of
that database is that our consultants even had difficulty during the
last study update to determine the success of the alternatives to
incarceration. There simply wasn't enough data in one location to
determine which programs are working better than others, how can we
maximize the use of the work release program, the other types of
programs that are available right now. That database system would
hopefully do that, give the right information at the right time to the
coordinating council to, again, fine-tune the system as we go along.
And it would hopefully avoid the need for more expensive or drawn out
studies in the future.
The fourth recommendation is to proceed immediately with the
construction of a new Immokalee Jail Center. That facility has gotten
to the end of its useful service life. We recommend that you add
another twenty beds to the 172 that are there right now. That would
serve two purposes. One would be short term relief for the Naples
Jail Center. There is some overcrowding in certain types of housing
at the Naples Jail Center. By constructing the Immokalee Jail Center
first, it's a lower capital cost facility and it will also provide a
short term relief until the Naples Jail Center expansion and
renovation take place.
The fourth one is to immediately find the funds to design the
Naples Jail Center expansion and renovation over two construction
phases, most likely one design phase.
The only thing that is different from the recommendations you're
hearing today and the executive summary that was presented to you in
September is that you should wait until the completion of the
campus-wide master plan to determine exactly how much space the
sheriff's central operations needs. The committee concurred that,
yes, the sheriff needs more space for -- to consolidate and enhance
the efficiency of its central operations support. But that
campus-wide study will give you more comprehensive information as to
the exact space needs, whether we should do it in Building A, or
expand Building J, or some other facility on campus. Number 5 -- that was number 6.
Number 7 is to create -- use the same types of video technology
that are available at the Naples Jail Center at the new Immokalee Jail
Center, and that would apply only to first appearances and
arraignments, the same type of services being offered out at the
Naples Jail Center. The intent there is to keep the Immokalee Jail
Center at its maximum capacity as best as we can, all the time to
minimize the operating cost for that. One additional
recommendation is to have you direct your financial consultant,
William R. Huff, to come up with the information necessary to identify
the funding sources and the funding scheme that's laid out in the
fiscal impact section of your report. Captain Smith is here if you
need any more answers regarding the jail operations. Messrs. Nunnet
and Cunniker are also here if you need more information regarding the
study itself.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Hancock, you have a question?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. The first thing I'd like to do is
thank all the members of the Jail Committee. When the board
established the committee I think it was a terrific way of us saying
we know we need to take a direction, we just need more specifics on
what that direction should be, and those have been provided in a very
detailed manner. So to all members of the jail committee, I'd like to
say thank you.
I've taken the time. I met with representatives of V Group and
gone through the study and recommendations. Items 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, I
am in a hundred percent agreement with. Unfortunately, the time has
come that we need to move forward on some jail bed construction. The
rationale for Immokalee being the location for that makes sense to me.
I think we need to place as a priority those, those steps to get those
beds constructed in Immokalee. The two that I wish to hold off on a
little bit is Number 3, which is the 1.2 million dollars for the CJIS
System. I really feel like I need more information on how it works in
Lee County, what it does, how it would work in Collier and whatnot
before I can move forward on that. And the other one is Number 5,
which is to immediately proceed with the design and construction of
the 240 bed expansion of the Naples Jail Center. The reason I think
we need really to be in next fiscal year before we really consider
that is twofold. One is that the fiscal impact schedule at the bottom
has it in the '98/'99 fiscal year. The second is that, if you look at
the trend, '96 was a little bit of a drop year and '97 was a bump
year, and I'm very, very curious to see the '97/'98 numbers to know if
the trend that was used in the study -- which, thankfully, is not
terribly conservative, which is where it should have been -- but if
that '97 was a blip or that is a true trend. And I want to know that
because it may help us put that particular 16 million dollar item back
one year. And when we're looking at funding 30 million dollars over
ten years, that's a huge hit that we're not going to have all the
capital dollars necessary, in all likelihood, to accomplish, if that's
the need.
So I agree with all the recommendations, but on Numbers 3 and 5 I
would hold off on moving forward with those at this time, but I do
agree with the balance.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with many, but not all of your
comments.
Working from the back, from the back to the front, Item 7 is
fine. Item 6 seems like a no brainer. We already have laid out our
plans to do the master plan. We'll have those answers. I share your
concerns on Item 5. It is listed here for next fiscal year anyway,
but that'll give us an opportunity to get some real life numbers. I
couldn't agree with you more.
I think we do need to go ahead on Item 4 with the Immokalee Jail
Center. I too share your concern on the CJIS System. I need to know
more detail. It was interesting. I inquired from the V Group how
much we've spent in the last ten years on the studies, because the
reference here is this would avoid the need to periodically conduct
extensive studies. We've spent about $260,000 over ten years to do
those studies, so I'm wondering just how effective a 1.2 million
dollar expenditure is, so we don't have to do those studies. I'm told
it will make it far more efficient as far as computer input and so on
and so forth for us sliming out some of the paperwork. I would be
interested to see how that's going to ease up our employment needs
though. I highly doubt anyone will be laid off or any salaries will
disappear. So, if we're looking at a dollar and cents perspective of
the CJIS System, I really need to be convinced because the information
I have right now doesn't make monetary sense.
One item I disagree with you on is Item 1, and that is looking at
revising from 2.4 to 2.65.
Adolfo, you said that had been revised upwards because of the
statistics we had here over the past several years. The numbers I was
shown by the V Group actually don't show us any higher than 2.2 on an
annual average. And the rationale I was given by them is that our
numbers should be -- should follow the national trends, which show
higher numbers. I'm more interested in using the real life numbers
that we have as opposed to plugging in what Boise, Idaho, has. I
think we need to be aware of what the national trends are, but we have
a history right here and I'm much more interested in that than I am
somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask you a question on that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because my understanding was that it was
the peak, peaking factor that actually caused the bump to 2.65. So
maybe we can get an answer from that because my understanding was a
little different than that. I would agree with you if that's the
case.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I appreciate it. I think some of
that, again, from what the V Group has told me, is going to be
remedied by the additional beds in Immokalee as well. We'll drop some
of that number down, make that extra space available. I think when we
look at 30 million dollars or 29 point something million dollars, it's
a lot of money. There are a couple of places that we can talk about
lowering that number. The 2.4 rather than 2.65 is one of those
places.
That's a difference I understand, Adolfo, correct me if I'm
wrong, of about seventy beds over ten years?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is the equivalent of about three
and a half million dollars. So that may be a way to cut ten percent
immediately, right there, if we stay with our history and look at what
the impact of the new Immokalee facility would be. We may be able to
take more than ten percent before we even get too far in this.
I think -- I agree with you on the 1.2 million on the CJIS
System, unless it's proven to us.
The other thing I think the master plan may show, and it may not,
Greg and I -- he's here somewhere, I'm sure -- will have more
conversations on this, but I just find it awfully hard to imagine we
need 10 million dollars' worth of space. And I realize there are some
specialized needs there as far as evidence rooms and those type of
things, but 10 million dollars is an awful lot of administrative
expense. And so it just seems to me, if we cut 3 and a half million
out of that from the level of service and we cut perhaps 1.2 million
out of the CJIS System, and then our master plan study may bring back
another million or two, or more, that we can cut from the close to 10
million request for administrative space. We may have this, instead
of 29 million, down to 23 or 24 million.
I think overall we all acknowledge we need extra jail space. I
see you wincing over there. But I just think there is a way that we
can certainly do it for less than the price that's been laid out here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hiss Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only comments were just to echo. I
need a lot more information about the CJIS System. I don't know
enough about it. You know, the little bit of information that I've
gotten intrigues me, and I don't -- I'm not pre-judging it, but I'm
very anxious to get more information about the CJIS System. I'm glad
to hear most of the board, it sounds like, supporting going forward
promptly with the Immokalee design because that's a critical need at
this point. If anybody has seen it, it's awful. And, frankly --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that that really burns me or anything,
but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's outlived its usefulness, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Frankly, the part that I'm referring to is
not so much where the prisoners are but where the officers are.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where the employees are.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not safe, in my judgment. There's
wires hanging everywhere. But that's -- so anyway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll get Code Enforcement right on
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Get Code Enforcement on that.
There's lot of things in Immokalee we could get Code Enforcement right
on.
But that's a priority. I was glad to see it listed as Number 1.
The other question that I have besides the CJIS is, if the board
should go forward with what both of these commissioners have been
discussing, with getting -- I don't understand exactly the impact of
what you guys are requesting, since '98/'99 is where the jail center
design is anyway.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just setting the stage for that
discussion next year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Because that's what I thought you
were recommending, is '98 -- you know, next year for that discussion,
and meanwhile we're investigating the funding opportunities and that
kind of stuff.
Did I understand that right?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. It's -- the design is to start in fiscal
year '98/'99, but it would make sense to, during this summer period,
to have William R. Huff come up with that financing scheme in
anticipation, to allow -- to give you that information during the
budget process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't hear you guys say that you don't
want to look into the financing options.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. What I was objecting to was the
statement, "Immediately proceed with the design and construction of a
240 bed expansion." That, I thought, was a little premature in
wording but yet the numbers on the bottom I agree with because that
says we'll look at it next fiscal year, so -- I was just saying that I
don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With the "immediately".
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm not comfortable immediately
proceeding with the design yet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Proceed in accordance with the
schedule below.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I think I agree with that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I would like to echo the comments
about the level of service. I think I would prefer at this point to
stay at the 2.4 level that we have been using until we see some data
that indicates that we need to increase it. We can certainly increase
that level of service on any modification date that we want to do it.
So I'd prefer at this point to leave it at 2.4.
I agree with the CJIS comments. I think we need to have a lot
more information before we're ready to drop 1.2 million dollars into
more computer systems.
And the comments about taking our time on the Naples Jail Center
expansion I think are appropriate. I have to agree with that as well.
Let me ask you one question, Mr. Gonzalez. You mentioned Huff &
Company coming up with a financing plan. They're our financial
advisor. Are they also allowed to bid for the bond issue itself?
MR. GONZALEZ: I don't know. I'd be glad to get you an answer on
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think as part of their contract that
was prohibited. I'm ninety-five percent sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They cannot be involved in the underwriting
of the bond; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it is not, I would support that being a
policy at least on this matter and possibly worked into the contract
because it makes sense, Commissioner Norris. Thank you for bringing
it up. I hadn't thought of that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that all?
Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't recall specifically the language of that
contract with respect to their ability to bid, but I do think it's an
excellent policy to exclude them from the ability to do so. I think it
ensures objectivity on their part to, to make sure they're giving the
best financial advice that they can give us when they don't have a
stake in the other side of the proposition.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why we went to an independent FA in
the first place.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, from my point of view there's no sense
in rehashing. You've all said it pretty much. On the CJIS System,
1.2 million seems like a tremendous amount of money. But I think it
also is going to give us some information. If we are -- or not "if
we .... but if there are programs out there that are being used that
are ineffective, then this perhaps is going to let us know which of
those programs are ineffective and they need to get rid of them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Many times there are programs that are put in
place, they are feel good, fluffys, it makes people think that, "Gee,
they're really tending to the situation." And in reality, they're not
doing their job. And the only way you can do that is to have some,
something that evaluates the program. If this is a system that does
that, then -- we need to get something in place. The only thing that
stops me on this is 1.2 million dollars. I mean, this is just
staggering. And I would like to see if there's something else other
than CJIS, but, obviously, this is the one of choice, so -- I guess
we'll have to just kind of hold off on it until we can see our way
clear and get more information on it. But I definitely see that, in
the future, once we get that information, it may change some other
dollars that are being expended that maybe we really -- or that they
don't need to be expended.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's in place elsewhere perhaps
another community can demonstrate to us how that's been done.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It could be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To Mark Hiddlebrook's credit, Court
Administration, he did say that he would piggyback off Fort Myers in
the meantime --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think that's going to be a good test
case. The second thing is, we did an appropriation for computers for
the State Attorney's Office so that they could access the CJIS System
this year. There was a discussion about it and then we appropriated
it this year. So I think CJIS is in Collier County, it's just not
across the entire court system over there. But I'm sure we'll hear
from Mr. Middlebrook on that. He's already offered to piggyback on
Lee County, which I think is a wise move, so -- I just -- I want to
know more about that. I'm not ready to commit to it today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any speakers on this subject?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Let's see. Yes, we do. Mr. Ty Agoston.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty
Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for myself.
Within TAG we were working very actively to defeat the proposal
to fund jail building a couple of years ago. And at this point in
time I am still not quite convinced just exactly where the needs are
and whether those needs extend to 30 some odd million dollars.
A common joke is that we have been hearing, and that was before
my time, but we've been hearing the need for jail space since 1989.
And here we are at 1998. You have not built a jail, and I understand
that you have expanded the jail beds, but the fact of the matter is
that did not spend 30 million dollars. And I believe that the public
pretty much proved by their voting pattern that they don't believe in
spending a great deal of money on the jail population. You know,
there are many, many needs across the board and most of us -- and I
should include myself -- do not believe that we should be in the
business of providing what you see on the various shows about
basketballs playing, and what have you, the air-conditioned leisure
lounges, or whatever. Whether that's a reality or just projected is
two different things. The fact of the matter is, that's what is being
projected.
Reading the executive summary, it's an absolutely horrendous
amount of money to spend, 4 million dollars on 200 beds. That -- it's
just an absolutely phenomenal per bed expenditure. Now, whether
you're controlled -- I understand you are controlled by federal and
state standards on the kind of a structure you can build. I still
believe that, depending on the kind of an advisory people you select,
will determine the kind of money you're going to wind up spending. And
it seems that in Collier County we have a tendency to use the Cadillac
method and spend top dollars, where maybe a Plymouth or a Chevrolet
will do. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry, did you say that was the last one?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No others.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make an attempt
to draft a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the following: To
immediately proceed with the 192 bed Immokalee facility as outlined in
our executive summary; to create a video link for the remote in
Immokalee as outlined in our summary; to move forward with our campus
master plan which will be available this spring at which time we can
consider what's the appropriate activity for the administrative
expansion and so on; that we put on hold the Naples expansion plan
work until fiscal '99, which is also outlined in our summary; that we
make no commitment at this time on CJIS. If Greg and others can bring
us back information on that, that's fine, but at this point, don't
make any commitment on that. That we go ahead and reactivate the
Public Safety Council and that we maintain our level of service at
2.4.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Question on the motion?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You said put off the question regarding
Naples Jail Expansion until fiscal '99. Did you mean fiscal '98,
slash '99, or '99, slash --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fiscal '99 is '98/'99.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Exactly what's laid out here in
our plan.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have a question?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Adolfo, on the level of service issue of
the 2.4 versus 2.65, was that based on a national average or on actual
data from Collier County, the recommendation to go to 2.65?
MR. GONZALEZ: It was based on the Collier County trend, actual
bed count for the last six years. I don't know if you have that
executive summary with you, but the last figure in that report, that
small report -- I think it's Figure 10 -- has this chart on it. This
is the actual trends information.
And you're right, Commissioner Constantine, that 2.2, the actual
number is -- the highest it ever got was 2.15 per thousand. Now, the
V Group recommended a range of 2 to 2.15. Add on top of that a
management factor because some jail beds, some cell blocks are empty,
yet other places, inmates are sleeping on the floor because of the
category of security. That's what the management factor is for. And
add on top of that a peaking factor, the difference between the
average population and the peak on any one day, that puts the range to
2.46 to 2.65. We simply recommended the high side of the range
because of that last spike in there.
Your recommendation, Commissioner Hancock, to look at last year's
tend to see if that spike continues, in that case we should go with
the 2.65 or leave it at where it is now. But that range is 2.46 to
2.65, which is, even the range is slightly higher than the current
2.4.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm suggesting that we ought to
leave it where it is now, and I think, particularly when we have the
new beds in the Immokalee facility, that's going to open up some
opportunities, so we don't have people sleeping on floors.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But isn't that included in the factor, the
Immokalee beds?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's factored in already,
Commissioner Constantine, in their recommendations, so that, despite
that, they're still recommending the 2.6.
My fear is that -- well, my fear is that, if we -- we don't want
to build something that's obsolete as soon as it's completed. That's,
you know -- we want to be very careful about that. And I guess my
question is, how -- what are the repercussions in the planning if we
-- I'd like to get Commissioner Hancock's requested numbers too. I'd
like to see if that's a spike or if it's a continuing trend. But I
don't want to plan for something and then find out too late that we
have under planned. When can we get the actual -- the current
numbers, and would we be able to update this process as we go along if
we find in fact that the majority of the board agrees that 2.6 is the
right number when we look at real numbers?
MR. GONZALEZ: My gut feeling is that, after we start the design
of the Immokalee jail and before we even start the design of the
Naples jail, sometime in the next year we'll have the data from the
previous years. I don't know how what -- how much of a lag there is
for actually collecting that data.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, since we're not actually beginning the
planning of that jail until next fiscal year, it seems to me, you
know, maybe we can adopt 2.4 today as a goal and then, when we get
actual numbers, we'll have time to change them --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's a good idea. If we
have numbers that show us differently, great. I just think that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Be conservative while we can and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Ty was saying we're going with
a Cadillac at times, and that is the high end of the range. So, until
we have numbers to further support that, then we'll stay where we are
and then -- I think you're absolutely right. We'll have some more
numbers before we get into that design next year..
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Norris?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, John.
Whether we're at 2.4 or 2.65 has no effect on the initial
direction of the Immokalee Jail Center, so we buy ourselves a year.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Second thing is that I turned the
TV on last night and saw -- I think it was Channel 7 -- saying that
taxes are going up in Collier County. Well, it's amazing that their
financial advisor was so keen to determine what our funding mechanism
was before we did. I thought that was, that was very intuitive of
them
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They ought to just send us the report and
save us some money.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. You know, I really appreciate the
media's assistance there. But we have not determined, whether through
impact fees or whatnot, what the funding mechanism is. So there is no
impact on taxes right now. But realistically, I think we're going to
see something other than capital funds being used here. The question
is what. When we determine that, we'll let you know. And we'll have
a hearing about it. So we really appreciate the preemption by the
media there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It got my attention at 10:00. I thought I'd
slept through a meeting and we'd done something and I'd missed it, you
know.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did we miss something?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, I think with those two things being
said, it frames it.
And as far as the Cadillac bit, that's just -- Ty, you know, we
have to build them to certain standards. We aren't given a choice.
Until they approve work camps in the swamps again, we're just -- we're
kind of stuck. But just out of curiosity, the average home in Collier
County costs about $40,000 a bed. So we're doing it for half the
cost, so that's another way to look at it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Gonzalez, are we going to look for a
design that is expandable in nature? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So that if we do find ourselves short
sometime in the future, we're not going to start from ground zero and
go over it again?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. The Immokalee Jail Center will be
easily expanded for two more housing pods of 64 beds each.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The Immokalee Center, yeah. But I was
referring to the Naples Jail Center.
MR. GONZALEZ: The Naples Jail Center, we're not going to build
any more maximum security beds. We have plenty at the existing
facility. It will be minimum and medium security.
You had also inquired about a work release center. The current
plan is to house the work release center within the expansion area. At
such time in the future, if more minimum or maximum security beds are
needed, the work release center could be housed somewhere else and
you'll have more beds available again at the Naples Jail Center.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, our committees need to remember
that, that the assembly center has agreed to work that into their
plans, if that's the desire of the community.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. That will come up --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And they would do that at an extremely
reduced cost compared to what we would spend as a government to do
that operation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I don't recall this board
committing to a work release center, and that'll be part of the plan
that will come up next year anyway, the Naples expansion. But I
recall the voters turning that down. And I'm not ready to ignore
that. And I think with the alternatives that Commissioner Norris has
laid out, I don't recall this board ever making that commitment, so
please don't anybody move forward assuming that part is part of the
plan.
MR. GONZALEZ: If I might restate it in another way, there are 64
beds planned in the Naples Jail Expansion Project. That could
accommodate a work release service. If it's not, that'll be another
64 beds available for the typical type of inmate housing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fewer of those, but --
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. If you do --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you take 64 beds --
MR. GONZALEZ: If you do decide to go ahead with the work release
center, the report says that you don't have to build a separate
structure, that it can be accommodated in the expansion. But either
way, you have another 64 bed leeway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That we might be able to cut. But
again, that's in the '98/'99 year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that would be determined too on the whole
campus plan and -- right? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, that's all going to come back when we
get all that study and all, all of that laid out together; am I
correct?
MR. GONZALEZ: This report covered all of the jail needs.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. GONZALEZ: The campus plan will cover the operations needs.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The administrative part.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, Okay. Right.
At this time we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any
further questions or comments? I'll call for the question.
All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I guess no one's opposed, so it's 5-0 in
favor.
Item #SD1
RESOLUTION 98-13, SPECIAL RISK FOR EHERGENCY HEDICAL TECHNICIANS (EHT'S
AND PARAMEDICS - ADOPTED
Okay. Hoving along then to Support Services. Adopt a resolution
for special --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- risk for emergency medical technicians and
paramedics.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't mean to undercut Mr. Kopka's hard
work on this, but, good idea. Next?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I heard you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got a motion and second, unless somebody's
opposing it. It's a great idea.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think the only thing that we need to
comment on is the cost involved here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is indeed a cost involved. What I
would like to see before we make the budgetary, final budgetary
decision -- this is simply a resolution to support. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When it does come time, if it's approved
by the legislature for us to fund it, we'll cross that bridge when we
come to it. But in the meantime, the turnover in our EHS Department
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- certainly has an associated cost. If
that can be reduced by percentage points we may be able to fund a
portion of it with that. But there -- it will an additional cost, but
I think it's a key position in the county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Although if the gauge is the number of
five, ten and twenty year pins we give out to EHS, they hang in there
pretty good with us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's nice to see the stability and see people
coming back year after year, so I'm pleased for that. But I just
wanted to point that out, that it doesn't go without a price tag on it
eventually.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously, and this is for a
resolution.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have four speakers, but --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do they want to talk us out of this or do you
just want to talk? You would like to speak? Dr. Tober, we'll let you speak.
DR. TOBER: I hate public speaking --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
DR. TOBER: -- but I thought that -- I do appreciate your
supporting this resolution. I wanted to clarify what may be a
misunderstanding.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your name?
DR. TOBER: Robert Tober. I'm sorry. I'm Medical Director for
Collier County EHS and director of our two emergency rooms in Collier
County.
We have had -- we have lost forty paramedics in the last two
years to other jobs and other services. We actually have fourteen
outstanding, unfilled vacancies at this time. And this is the first
time in our history when more than fifty percent of our medics have
less than four years of field experience out in the field, and we
really consider a medic, or even an ER doctor, to need five years of
full-time combat duty before we really feel like they're experienced.
And we are having now, for the first time since I've been here in
twenty years, a retention problem in holding paramedics here. We did
give out a couple of ten-year pins today, but the number of people
that have stuck in that long is rapidly diminishing. And at some
point in time, special risk is a part of the issue, but we do need to
discuss the overall packages that we tie together for the paramedics
in terms of trying to keep them in clinical medicine and not going to
other services. That's all. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Just to correct it, Dr. Tober, they were only five-year people.
MR. TOBER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay?
Mr. Laird, do you want to come up to the podium, please?
MR. LAIRD: I didn't want to make a speech.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But the people at home want to hear what you
have to say.
Identify yourself, please, for the record.
MR. LAIRD: Bob Laird. I'm chairman of our eleven member
emergency medical services advisory council. And the only thing I
wanted to say to you is that our chief, Diane Flagg, asked if I would
speak briefly. Walter Kopka said, "Would you please speak briefly." I
got the message, so I thank you for helping me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Speak briefly?
MR. LAIRD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The only other speaker we had was James Tobin. I
don't know if he continues to want to speak.
MR. TOBIN: Good morning, commissioners. James Tobin, Fire
Chief, North Naples and also the president of the Collier County Fire
Chiefs' Association.
I just at this point want to thank you for supporting the
resolution. We are a hundred percent behind the men and women of
Collier County EHS receiving special risk. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's nice of you to be here to say that.
Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 98-14 APPOINTING GAIL DOLAN TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Moving on, then, to the time
for the Board of Collier County Commissioners, confirmation of
appointment to the EMS Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any discussion on this? We have a motion and
a second.
All those in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously.
Was there anyone to speak on that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Good thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's moving us along, though, by God.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION REQUESTING DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE IHMOKALEE FARMWORKERS AND
THE GROWERS - MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item on the agenda, Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to bring this for your
consideration, and I want to be very careful and be very clear. In
order to help be very clear I went ahead and wrote out a draft of a
resolution I think you all have copies of.
My issue here is -- sorry. What is -- I guess I'll read this in
a minute, Mr. Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just referencing some comments on this, so
-- go ahead, please.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My request here is that we merely take the
position of urging conversation between the growers and the workers so
that the hunger strike can end. Toward that end, let me read you what
I've proposed for a resolution.
Whereas, an unfortunate situation currently exists in Collier
County in which five of its residents, farm workers in Immokalee, are
committed to starving themselves to death unless the growers for whom
they work agree to meet with them; and
Whereas, some of these men have families who look to them as
fathers, husbands and breadwinners; and
Whereas, these men have vowed to continue to starve themselves
until they are dead or the growers agree to talk to them; and
Whereas, only the N.T. Gargiulo Company has stepped forward among
the growers and has agreed to talk to the workers while to date the
others have refused; and
Whereas, the Board of Collier County Commissioners does not
pretend to have the answers to the questions posed, nor does it wish
to take sides in the debate, but does recognize it has a moral and
legal obligation to care for the safety, health and welfare of all
Collier County residents.
Now therefore be it resolved that the Board of Collier County
Commissioners formally and respectfully ask the growers of Collier
County to come to the table with the farm workers, thereby ending this
dangerous hunger strike, saving the lives of the five men and opening
a dialog for the betterment of the community.
I would like to move adoption of this resolution.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection to us
encouraging communication. No harm can come from groups talking. I
think we need to be very careful, though, and I don't think you're
suggesting this, but I think we need to be very careful not to
interject ourselves in the middle of this or raise any expectations,
only because we don't have any authority here. And I would hate to
have anyone assume that we can get in the midst and make some things
happen when we really don't have any authority to do that. But
encouraging communication, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that a second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Hancock?
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to support the resolution.
I don't believe it is under the purview of this board to be involved
in labor protests unless they affect the operation or delivery of
services which county government or even state or federal government
are responsible for. The agricultural industry is not our
responsibility, and this is a labor protest. What I'm concerned about
is, next time we have any type of a strike in this county that we're
asked to, again, encourage communication and, before you know it,
we're passing resolutions on every labor protest that occurs within
the boundaries of Collier County.
I think it's important that we clearly define our role in this
situation. And what I've tried to do to that end is, rather than just
sit up here and say no, I don't think this is our position, is to try
and take a course that will bring some relief in the long-term in an
area that is our responsibility, and that area is simply one of
housing. There was a project, a pilot project in Texas several years
ago that showed some promise that may work here in Collier County. It
was basically where a not for profit foundation was created for the
purpose of constructing and housing, on a dormitory style basis,
single men and women farm workers. The corporation was actually set
up by the farmers out there. Grants were received to do it, and
basically the farm workers were able to not just support themselves
but to save money, to take English as second language classes. In
other words it was just a -- overall, a pretty neat project. I've
outlined it in a press release that I'll be distributing from my
office today. I will try and gather more information over the next
week to two weeks to bring it back to the board to ask if you wish to
form an investigative committee to look at whether or not this is an
option to, on that committee, include farmers, farm workers, financial
people, and so forth.
The whole reason for this is, sometimes you sit up here and you
feel like your job is to make a decision one way or the other. But if
you don't like either of those options, I think you have to provide a
third course. And I think this is a course that could be most
productive in the area we do have a responsibility, and that is to
address housing needs in Immokalee. That responsibility is placed
upon us by the State of Florida, whether we like it or not.
So, I've just, for the purpose of this, I am going -- I'm not
going to support the resolution. I have a different path I think we
need to take, and that's outlined in the press release. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just going to disagree with you. I
don't think housing of private industry is our responsibility. I
appreciate your concern about the first point, and I don't want
anybody to read my second of the motion as supporting the strikers or
supporting anything else. All I'm saying is -- I agree with you. We
shouldn't be involved in a labor dispute, but if we can encourage two
groups to talk, that's fine. It's no different than what I said
during the UPS strike. I thought the strikers were in the wrong in
that instance, however, it would have been far more productive for
both sides to actually talk instead of parading around for three or
four weeks and disrupting commerce for the entire United States.
This is absolutely no different. Rather than have these people's
lives in danger, talk. They're not saying they're going to continue
the hunger strike unless they get what they want, they're saying,
"Just talk to us." So I'm not -- I don't want you to misread my
second.
I'm going to disagree with you, though, as far as our
responsibility. We do have some responsibility to try to make sure we
have ample affordable housing and so on in the county, but if private
industry creates a need for housing, private industry has a
responsibility, particularly in this case, to make that happen. I'm
not sure that's the county's place.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This concept --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We find ourselves at a crossing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This concept is simply working with
private industry to make that a reality, that's all. In other words,
being the instigator, but not the person held responsible.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I appreciate it. I'm just saying,
in my opinion, I don't know if that's our role, our responsibility.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with my colleagues that I don't
feel that it's the county commission's place to interject itself into
a labor dispute. There's always two sides to any dispute, and I think
that there's been a lot of attention given to one side of this dispute
in recent days. But, you know, this is America. It's the land of
opportunity. It's based on freedom. Freedom means a lot of things to
different people. Most of the people who come here to work in the
fields, farm workers, are from some other country. They come here
because they have the opportunity and the freedom to do these sort of
things. And even though half of them are perhaps not legally
emigrated and somewhat restricted on their freedoms, the idea is that
there is certainly more available to them here in America than there
was in their home countries or they would not have come here. But
freedom goes the other way as well.
Freedom is largely based on our economic system of free
enterprise. The marketplace will dictate what salaries should be in
any industry. And certainly any business owner should have the
freedom to operate his business without the unnecessary interference
by government. So, I, for these reasons, agree with my colleagues
that it is not the place of the Collier County Commission to interject
itself into this dispute.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, so far you agree with one of
your colleagues and disagree with two of your colleagues. I just
thought I'd point that out, that I am your colleague. And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe he's seeing two of me down here. You
never know.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess so. Seeing double. It was that
you shaved and confused him again.
I want to just doubly and triply, and as many times as I can,
say, I would never suggest that we should intervene in a labor
dispute. I would never suggest that we should take sides. This is
way too complicated of an issue for us to know how to solve it, and
it's absolutely not our job to solve it. My request is based on our
health and safety obligations, that we request the growers to talk to
the strikers so that the hunger strike ends. Nothing more. That's
all I'm requesting, and that's why I was careful to draft the
resolution to say that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, do we have any speakers on
this issue?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one speaker. Steve Price.
MR. PRICE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Steve
Price. I'm a long-time resident of Immokalee, grew up there, worked
in the fields some as a high school student, decided that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Banking was better?
MR. PRICE: -- that was not the place to be and went on to
college.
There's so much misinformation out there that I thought it
appropriate to finally have someone step up and address this issue,
you know. Commissioner Constantine makes a comparison between this
and the UPS strike and says they're the same thing. And --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me correct you right there, Steve.
I'm not saying they're the same thing. All I'm saying is, it would
have been far more effective for UPS and the strikers to talk. And for
at least a three-week period they absolutely refused to talk to one
another. And I happened to support management on that side. And,
quite frankly, I happen to support the farmers on this side. But there
is no harm in sitting down and saying, "Look, this is why we think
this, this and this we're not going to agree to." I'm not trying to
compare the two. I'm not saying they're the same. MR. PRICE: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm saying communication's effective.
MR. PRICE: I understand that. But what I wanted to point out is
that there is no comparison because, in the UPS strike, the workers
were on strike. In this strike, the workers are not on strike. The
paid agitators attempted to get the workers on strike, and they would
not join them. And so they resorted to another form of extortion.
But the workers are not on strike, and that's a big difference.
Miss Mac'Kie says that we shouldn't intervene and then makes a
motion to intervene, saying that the farmers should speak with people
who they don't feel represent their workers. And that's the key
that's being missed here, is that the farmers say they're speaking to
their workers. The farmers say they don't believe the coalition
represents their workers. And then you're saying, "But we're
encouraging you to speak to someone who you don't think represents
your workers."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Price, let me be clear. I don't care
if they represent the workers. I don't care if what they say to them
is, "We would like for you to eat, please." I would just like for
them to speak to them so that they can eat. I'm not saying -- I'm not
saying they represent the workers. I'm not taking any position. I'm
saying, please speak to them so they don't die.
MR. PRICE: Let me recommend another solution to the problem. I
wrote a letter, and I'd like to read it into the record. It's an open
letter to the commissioners, faxed to you-all yesterday, and it simply
plays devil's advocate a little bit. I can't speak to the farmers,
because I'm not a farmer. But I can look at what's going on and make
some assumptions based on what I see.
"I'm just wondering about the farmers and the hunger strikers.
Extortion doesn't seem to be working. I wonder why so many people
think that's bad. I wonder, if another approach was taken, if it
would be any more successful. Perhaps if the striking side vowed to
tell the truth, the whole truth, for a change, if they might gain
credibility in the eyes of the growers and thereby gain access by
gaining credibility. Let's at least consider this approach and see
what might be involved.
"First, Bishop Nevins would have to quit playing it up to the
public sympathy by offering the Catholic church as a neutral meeting
place and admit that the coalition is sponsored by the Catholic
church. There's nothing neutral about meeting at the Catholic church.
The coalition would then have to admit that they are not a coalition
of farm workers but in fact are paid agitators. Mr. Asbed is not a
farm worker. One of the hunger strikers has admitted that he's paid
by the coalition, he's a staff member. So they would have to admit
those things.
Mr. Asbed and the strikers should stress that in fact they're not
farm workers, they're paid agitators, they're mechanics. They have
admitted those -- three of six have already admitted --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who is it they are paid by, Steve?
MR. PRICE: Well, Mr. Asbed and one of the strikers are paid by
the coalition.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What coalition is that?
MR. PRICE: The Coalition of Immokalee Workers, which is a 501C3,
I think, that primarily is funded by donations from the Catholic
church, according to statements they made in the paper, not --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By individuals who are Catholic or by the
diocese?
MR. PRICE: The statements that they are reported to have made in
the newspaper are that the Catholic priests or bishops supported them.
And I have no way of knowing that, other than what they said
themselves, or were quoted to have said. I don't want to assume that
the newspapers get anything right either, because they made a
statement this morning that was an outright lie.
But the -- three of the hunger strikers have admitted that
they're not Immokalee farm workers, and that's just a fact that they
have admitted in the newspaper.
Mr. Asbed would have to admit the farm workers negotiate daily
with farmers for wages which are paid at varying rates and also
varying structures, depending on farm worker demands and farmer needs.
The big lie -- and this one boggles my mind, because so many people
who count themselves intelligent buy it hook, line and sinker, with no
thought as to how obviously absurd it is, and the big lie would have
to be abandoned. And what is the big lie? Farm workers earned more
twenty years ago than they do today.
Twenty years ago farm workers earned 16 to $20.00 a day. Today
they earn a minimum of $42 a day by law. During December, while the
strike was being started by these paid agitators, farm workers
averaged 60 to $80 a day and some young, strong workers earned as much
as 120. Even if you had no way to know that, you would have to be
pretty naive to believe that twenty years ago when minimum wage was
$15.00 a day, that farm workers earned more than the $42.00 a day
current minimum wage.
Doesn't anyone wonder why the paid agitators couldn't get the
workers to join the strike attempt in December? Perhaps it had to do
with not being willing to pass up their best opportunity to make
serious money. Monday's Naples Daily News reported a Hispanic male
being robbed of $1,700 in cash he was going to send to his family.
I'd be willing to bet he was a farm worker and his savings that he was
robbed of represented his last thirty to forty-five days' work.
Perhaps if the paid agitators talked of such facts as more than 7
million dollars in loan losses the two area banks have had in the
nineties and the additional four million they still have classified by
the regulators as a direct result of the farmers' losses, they could
gain the sympathy of the growers. Maybe a mention of the several
empty packing houses with original costs of more than 15 million
dollars, which operated prior to NAFTA and now stand empty, would
begin to bring credibility. Or how about the fact that the Florida
Tomato Committee once boasted of more than 400 members and now has 80?
The Monday Naples Daily News reported the sale of one of the
empty Immokalee packing houses for $350,000 to someone from
Jacksonville. Did you know the family farm which lost this to
foreclosure had more than 2 million dollars in it?
What if the strikers who plead that they're only talking about a
penny a pound and the consumer would gladly pay that much more
admitted that in the nineties, the 80 out of the 400 farmers who did
survive did so on less than four pennies a pound, and that there is no
mechanism, none, for passing anything along to the consumers?
What if the paid agitators turned their attention to getting the
public so upset they demanded only United States grown tomatoes and
insisted that the chain store prices reflect what they were paying for
produce rather than buying it for twelve cents a pound at the farm and
selling it for $1.69 a pound?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if they demanded that we parade
elephants through town? They're not demanding that, so I don't
understand the point.
MR. PRICE: No. But the point is that they're demanding that the
farmers pay more. Something they can't do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're demanding that they talk to them
so that they can eat.
MR. PRICE: What's the purpose in talk if it's not going to
result in higher pay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: People won't -- five people wouldn't die.
That's the purpose. Five people won't die.
MR. PRICE: Well, I don't -- I've been around a long time and I
don't think that's the issue.
What if the coalition admitted that housing costs for farm
workers have actually declined over the past twenty years while
housing conditions have improved a hundredfold?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Price, can we ask you to wrap up?
We usually give five minutes. It's been eight minutes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please, hold on. Give him his time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ten minutes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Continue, Steve.
MR. PRICE: Okay. I'll do whatever you like, but I have been
delayed by the questions rather than my statement. So I would like to
finish the statement.
The -- they could talk about the more than a thousand low cost
housing units now available that were not available twenty years ago.
Maybe they could mention that farm worker village, which offers 571 of
those housing units at an average cost of $240 a month, is the result
of much hard work and considerable personal expense of farmers and
Immokalee businessmen.
What if all of the hypocrites who have written letters suggesting
the farmers who are struggling to keep from going broke be solely
responsible for solving the world's poverty looked inwardly instead of
at someone else's small pocketbook?
I wonder if honesty, complete honesty, would do more than
extortion.
In regard to your resolution, I also wonder if the City of Naples
decided that Collier County employees were paid too little and hired
agitators who, after trying unsuccessfully to organize your employees,
then arranged for some of their own employees, as well as other
non-Collier County employees, to go on a hunger strike, if you'd want
to negotiate with the City of Naples to give Collier County employees
a raise.
I also wonder, if the Lee County Commission passed a resolution
urging Collier County to give in to extortion of the hunger strikers,
if you'd think that it was any of their business.
I wonder if the Catholic church would be willing to put up its
billions of dollars to guarantee farmers or even so simply -- or even
to simply guarantee that, if they paid workers fifty cents a bucket
for the first picking, that they would have the same labor available
to them for the third picking. I don't think that most of you even
know that there's a difference.
I also wonder if it would be appropriate to discuss what the farm
worker is doing to improve his own life. There are many opportunities
for adult education and vocational training. The Collier County
School Board has seen to this.
The point is that it's a complicated issue. And that's the only
point I'm trying to make. One that is not enhanced by hypocrites with
no idea of the realities demanding simple solutions, one that is not
going to get any better by blaming all of the world's problems on a
small group of farmers who work seven days a week, ten to eleven
months of the year, and risk everything they own to survive against
$3.00 a day labor in Mexico.
I don't know anyone who wouldn't like to see the farm worker have
a better situation. I also don't know anyone who is willing to look
at real solutions. We all want to make it the farmer's problem and
then go buy Mexican tomatoes. If the Collier County Commission wants
to get involved, first get the facts. Then either commit to a
realistic solution or get out of the way.
I hope you won't pass any ill-conceived resolutions without first
doing a little fact-finding, just so you can grab a headline. What
other issue would you pass a resolution on without first getting the
facts?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Price, I appreciate that because that
is exactly the point. Would you support a resolution for a forum to
provide the facts? Because that would be -- that is exactly what I'm
asking us to do, for us -- I would beg for the farmers to please
speak, and speak to the grower -- to the farm workers, but to please
provide -- I'm so grateful you're here. I'm so grateful that you're
giving that information, because that is exactly the information
that's missing, and you're exactly right to be mad that nobody has
told that side of the story. What I'm asking is, would they please
have that -- give us that education opportunity, give the coastal
community that education opportunity by speaking to the workers and
telling all of us exactly what you just said.
MR. PRICE: There's a difference. They're speaking to the
workers. If you'd like to see that, come over at 5:00 one morning and
I'll --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't doubt it.
MR. PRICE: -- take you down there and show you that daily they
negotiate with their workers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir, I know that.
MR. PRICE: And the first hour is spent every morning with
workers going from bus to bus trying to get the best deal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get the best deal. Right.
MR. PRICE: There's a difference between the farmer being willing
to speak to his workers and being willing to speak to the coalition.
And you're asking him to do something he's not going to do, because
it's a no-win situation for him. Sunday's paper finally contained
some factual information about the farmer's situation. It contained
it on the inside of the last page, while the front page had unfactual
statements blasting the farmers. The farmer can -- today's editorial
blamed the farmer because some -- it said the farmers are making their
workers live in a dilapidated trailer and charging them $1,000 a
month. I've written a letter to the editor challenging Mr. Liedel to
name that farmer, because he can't do it because it does not exist.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know that.
MR. PRICE: The farmer has been lied about so much he's better
off not talking.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But maybe he'd be better off talking,
because then he could tell his truth. That's my position.
MR. PRICE: He is talking to his workers. He's not going to talk
to the news media or somebody that he thinks is paid by an
organization to be an agitator.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I would like to make a
motion we call the question for the resolution.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got some comments before we vote.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think he just took precedence over your
comments. That was the point of it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Was there a second to that one?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To calling for the question?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To the motion to call the question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my second on the motion
then so we can have further discussion because I want to be able to
respond to Mr. Price's comments. And I'm not going to just have that
gone by.
I think you make some valid points. I am not blaming the
farmers. I am not suggesting we tell the farmers what to do. I am
not suggesting we get in there and negotiate. My father-in-law is a
farmer. I know every bit how difficult it is to make that work year
to year, and you're dependent on the weather and dependent on any
number of other things. And so I'm not blaming anyone or putting down
anyone or suggesting anything of that nature. I think, supporting
your position and the farmers' position, that the figures released by
the USDA this past week show that that Immokalee farm workers are some
of the best paid farm workers in the United States. And I don't -- so
I think, when the facts come out -- and hopefully they will -- that
your side is going to have a great deal of support. It's unfortunate
that the media and the press has not demonstrated that side as clearly
as they have shown the hunger striker. But I've got to agree with
Commissioner Mac'Kie that there is some benefit to communicating that
message and trying to get it out there. I think -- I agree completely
with Commissioner Norris' comments that this is a land of freedom, and
if these workers are not happy in their situation they have every
opportunity to go and work elsewhere. However, I think there is
absolutely no harm in a representative of the farmers sending a
person, going in and taking twenty minutes and sitting down and
saying, "We're not going to increase your wages and this is why." And
I think there are very, very valid reasons. You talked about NAFTA,
you talked about a number of different situations that have to do with
that. But to take a twenty-minute visit to say that, there's no harm
in that. I think it would get wonderful media coverage, the message
would get out and, for a change, those facts would be very clear in
the public eye. That's why I'm supporting this, not because there's
something wrong with the farmers, not because I'm blaming them for
anything. I agree. The paper does a disservice when they put an
editorial like that in the paper. They are misleading the public.
But if the farmers have an opportunity -- and I think this is a
wonderful opportunity -- to send a person, take twenty minutes, lay
out the facts. And I think when people hear those facts, they will
support your side. But there's only one way to do that, and that's to
go and communicate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you restate your second so we can have
a question?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I will. I don't know that it's
going to pass.
MR. PRICE: Could I ask one question in regard to that? Didn't
they do that when they wrote a letter to the governor, didn't they put
the facts out there? See, it doesn't --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They didn't speak to the coalition.
MR. PRICE: See, it doesn't make any difference because the
farmer's the bad guy, no matter what he does, it's a no-win situation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, they're not. Farmers are not the bad
guy.
MR. PRICE: The farmers responded. And they put the facts out
there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm clarifying my position, Steve. I'm
not telling you farmers are bad guys. I don't like those words being
put in my mouth. That's absolutely not what I'm saying. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And certainly I'm not.
MR. PRICE: I'm not saying you are. I'm saying the media.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that this is probably one of the most
sensitive issues. I should say emotional issues. It's extremely
difficult to deal with. I don't think any one of us up here sitting
at this board table are uncaring people and thinking that, you know,
this should just be cast to the wind. On the other hand, I think we
have to look at what our job is in this whole situation. What is our
role? And I believe that if we get involved in this situation, it
smacks of government intruding into private enterprise.
Personally, I can have my own thoughts on this whole situation
and deal with it on a personal matter, but when it comes to my role as
sitting up here as the chairman of the Collier County Commission, then
I have to assume a different role, and I have to look at us as a
government body and where that places us. It's an extremely difficult
situation and it clearly is a side where there is certainly two sides
to the issue. And no matter how -- if the farmers were to come
forward and to speak, it will never be portrayed fairly because it's
an emotional issue on the other side.
So we have a motion and a second before us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I withdrew my second before.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You withdrew your second of the motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I'm not going to re-state it for
the reason that I think we're going to do more harm than good by
having a vote against the resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then the motion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dies.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- dies for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the general information of the board,
if you wish to see it, whether you do or don't, I'll bring it back,
but when I get the details --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't have to look at it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I get the details and what options
are out there from some of the pilot projects that have occurred, and
coordinate with Mr. Mihalic and some others, I will try to bring that
back on an informational basis, and if the board wishes to act on it,
we can at that time. But in the meantime I'll be working on that in
accordance with the press release I put out today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it's important to take a look at
this, Tim. I think we have to weigh what you're proposing here in
regard to the amount of total housing that is available out there. You
have to look at a lot of conditions that are existing out in that area
at this time. I think for the first time in a while you do have some
vacancies, which -- you have to balance that. So for people to think
that there is not other types of housing available in Immokalee, there
has to be -- and I don't personally have those numbers in front of me,
but I would want someone to take an inventory and tell this commission
what is available in terms of housing out there, availability and
prices and so forth, before I would want to proceed. But this is not
to say that private enterprise, again, somebody might want to go
forward again working, perhaps, with Mr. Mihalic and Affordable
Housing and take a look at this. But there's a whole lot of
information that needs to come back before we can sit up here and say
that, yes, this is what the Collier County government wants to do.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, should we maybe ask for a
report from our -- from Mr. Mihalic about what is the current housing
-- you know, just a census of housing out in Immokalee to be presented
to the board so that we have some information, even if it's not
presented in this forum, at least a memo to all of us to sort of give
us that information?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We usually do get -- don't we get some
information?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We get that on an annual basis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We haven't made it necessarily Immokalee
specific but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Annually, but -- right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This isn't typical housing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What this is doing is, it would put the
slum lords out of business, the flop houses where they have ten and
twelve single individuals in them. Those are still active and alive
in Immokalee. So, you know, the board can do whatever it likes. I'm
going to -- on a tangent, I'm going to see if this has, if this holds
any water, and if it seems to then I'll try and bring it back on an
informational basis.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When you get information on this, I think it
would be appropriate to bring it back and share it with us and
certainly share it with our administrator.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll just use this quick moment to ask Mr.
Cautero to ask Mr. Mihalic to do some census information and at least
provide it to me. I assume the others would like that information
about just what are the housing opportunities in Immokalee and what
are the costs; are there vacancies in farm workers village and others?
Just a housing census for our information.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do the rest of the commissioners desire to
have this information?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not sure how we moved from the subject
of daily pay to housing. Where did we make the leap?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was -- that was just my tie-in in
saying, well, I don't think one is our responsibility, but I think at
least understanding the housing needs out there, and if we can create
a nitch that's necessary out there and get it started, that that's a
good idea.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. If we can get a capsule
look at the information --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've not asked the board to endorse my
idea. I've just simply said I'm going to work on it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think we need a lengthy report.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it's available information. I
just wish you'd provide it to us.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think Mr. Hihalic could stand up and give
you a dissertation right now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right now?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure he could, but I don't want someone
expending a, you know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A great amount of time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- a lot of staff time because they certainly
have got other things. But if they have that information readily
available, provide a copy to the commission, please.
Okay. That completes this. I think we'll take about a
ten-minute break and then we'll resume in just a few minutes.
(Recess was taken.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the meeting, please. If we
can ask everyone to find a seat.
PUBLIC COHMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - TY AGOSTON, REGARDING ARMY CORP OF
ENGINEERS ARTICLE IN NEWSPAPER
Public Comment. And I don't know where Mr. Fernandez is.
Do we have any registered speakers for Public Comment? Some of
you out there may know if you've registered to speak or not.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ty Agoston.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ty Agoston, speak now.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ty Agoston.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going once.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Going twice.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going twice.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Public Comment --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sold.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now closed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- on general topics.
MR. FERNANDEZ: There's one public comment. Ty Agoston.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If he's here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's not here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Agoston, I believe you're in the hallway.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Going once. Ah, thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. We're to the Public Comment
section of the agenda, and you have registered to speak, so we're
going to allow you that time.
MR. AGOSTON: Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Ty
Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for myself.
I have seen an article in the Naples Daily News as the parodyne
of information, and it was regarding the Army Corps. of Engineers
study. And I am here to kind of plead with you and point to the
article as pretty much of a, as a direction that the Army Corps. is
really heading. Mr. Stahling states his opinion that the study should
encompass Lee County and Collier County, the whole county. The Army
Corps. is the one who is going to be the final arbiter, just exactly
what the scope is. They're looking for political support. And, as far
as I can see, by you participating, you're going to lower yourself to
the level of a wildlife federation or level of an Audubon Society
because they're going to look at you as a member of that coalition who
is establishing this scope.
Frankly, I don't appreciate any government having the kind of a
scope Colonel Rice's white papers indicate. I don't want anybody to
talk to me about how to raise my children or my grandchildren or -- we
talked about the holistic education. And Miss Mac'Kie has embraced
that. I do not. I'm not sure any of you would.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except for me, because I already have.
MR. AGOSTON: Right. Well, I'm sure you went on the board for
sustainable Florida, ma'am, and that's -- as far as I could see, they
very clearly state exactly their position both on education, on child
rearing and on continual education from cradle to grave, and those, to
me, at least in my language, definitely means something.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They haven't started studying those issues
yet, but they're about to start studying some more human issues in
their attempt, in our attempt to balance the needs of the natural
systems with the needs of the human systems. If you looked more into
the governor's position, you'd be pleased.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. I think we need to get back.
Ty, please finish your comments regarding the Army Corps. of
Engineers.
MR. AGOSTON: I would like to simply caution and plead with you
not to participate, because they tell you pretty much up front that
they are the decision makers, you're not. So it's only the question
of the role you play. And, as far as I could see, the role you play
is legitimizing Mr. Stahling and his little -- well, hell, he's on
almost every environmental group in the county. And these people are
looking to extend that study's scope to the entire area of Collier
County as well as Lee County, which we have nothing to do with. Thanks
very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we received another comment that
was handed to me after Public Comment began. Would you like to accept
it, or no?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We had asked that anyone who wanted to speak
in regard to Public Comment, that they should register prior to that
item that was being heard. We've been here all morning, and they have
an agenda available. They know what is coming. At this point in
time, I don't think that we should accept that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
Item #12A1
ORDINANCE 98-2, REGARDING PETITION CP-97-04, BRUCE ANDERSON AND ROBERT
DUANE REPRESENTING DRS. MANUEL AND REGINA PENA REQUESTING TO AMEND THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY INCLUDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SE CORNER
OF NAPA WAY AND PINE RIDGE ROAD INTO PINE RIDGE ROAD INTERCHANGE
ACTIVITY CENTER SUBJECT TO LIMITING THE PARCEL TO MEDICAL USE ONLY -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We'll move on now to the afternoon
portion, actually, Advertised Public Hearings, and the first one,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Petition CP-97-04, Bruce Anderson and
Robert Duane representing Dr. Manuel Pena.
MS. LAYNE: Lee Layne, for the record. Madam Chairman, we may
also want to open the public hearing on R-97-2 at the same time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a companion item?
MS. LAYNE: They're companion petitions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. We need, I believe, to swear everyone
in. So if we could have Madam Court Reporter do so.
(The speakers were sworn.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if I may --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there anyone else?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if there are people not familiar with
this, members of the public may need some explanation on swearing in.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just that, if you're here to speak on that
item, you need to be sworn in also. Was there anyone here to speak as
either a public speaker or presenter on that item that was not sworn?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For or against it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If you would please stand up.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please stand and she will swear you in, if
you haven't been sworn in. You just did? Okay. But if you haven't,
then, please, we've got one more that needs to be sworn in.
(The speaker was sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Miss Layne?
MS. LAYNE: Good morning, commissioners. This is a small scale
plan amendment to amend the Future Land Use Map by adding 2.3 acres of
property located at the southeast corner of Napa Way and Pine Ridge
Road, into the Pine Ridge interchange activity center and to limit the
uses to medical office only. The petitioner's request is to amend the
plan so that a re-zoning request to C-1/T for a medical office can be
applied for. This will also remove the property from the Golden Gate
master plan and place it into the Future Land Use activity centers.
The property to the north is designated as interchange activity
center as well as the property to the west. The property to the east
and south are designated E estates, mixed use district.
The petitioner is justifying the proposed inclusion into the
activity center to provide for transitional uses between higher
intensity commercial uses and lower intensity residential.
There are approximately seven existing single family homes along
Pine Ridge Road east of the property and four existing homes on the
south side of 10th Avenue Southwest, behind the subject property.
The inclusion of this property into the activity center would
cause further intrusion of commercial property into the residential
area, which presently has a natural break and transition between the
existing Astron Plaza PUD and the subject property with Napa Way.
If you remember, when we did the evaluation and appraisal report
for the amendment to the comprehensive plan, there was no indication
that additional commercial was needed in this area. However, there is
some possibility that as commercial development commences in this
area, coupled with the development of the Cleveland Clinic, Naples,
pressure for land use changes will continue. It is not uncommon for
residential uses to coexist with transitional uses such as medical.
Some communities have this mixture of uses, such as the City of Naples
and the City of Inverness, which uses an R/P,
residential/professional, in their land development code. Districts
such as this allow residential uses to coexist with medical facilities
and similar professional offices.
Based on the commercial analysis, there is no additional need for
commercial investment. Napa Way provides a natural break between the
existing southeastern boundary of the activity center. And the
applicant claims that real estate data shows this property has been
marketed for residential use with no successful sales, therefore it is
not suitable for residential use.
The Planning Commission heard this petition on November 20th and
recommended 5 to 2 that Petition CP-97-04 be recommended to the board
for approval due to the uniqueness of this corner lot being located
across commercial.
Messrs. Nelson and Pedone were the dissenting votes, stating they
agreed with staff's recommendation of denial and the possibility of
the commercial being carried further down the street. The
recommendation is that the Planning Commission approve the
comprehensive plan amendment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Layne, you said there's a natural
break between Astron and this property. Could you define that break
for me?
MS. LAYNE: This is the location of the property. This is Astron
Plaza PUD. Right across from the Vineyards you have the Crossroads
Market. In this location is Napa Way, which runs from Pine Ridge Road
south to 10th Avenue, and then it connects with Napa Boulevard going
into the Vineyards, and then the subject property is just to the east
of that. So the natural break that we're speaking of is Napa Way
there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The sixty-foot right of way?
MS. LAYNE: It's a hundred-foot right of way.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hundred-foot right of way.
MS. LAYNE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess my question on the compatibility
standpoint is, in other areas where we have commercial activity,
whether it be retail or office or whatnot, we have found it at times
compatible to go and address the street into a lesser intensive C-1
transitional type zoning. I don't find this request inconsistent with
that that was done up by Veterans Community Park not too long ago
where we did medical office next to another higher intensity
commercial use site. So I guess I'm not sure I would classify a
roadway as a natural break, but, in purely transitional uses, when you
talk about intense retail commercial, which is Astron Plaza, would you
agree that a C-1/T use on this property is in fact a drop in intensity
and a natural transition to residential use?
MS. LAYNE: It's a drop in intensity from the commercial, but
it's increasing the intensity of the residential use that is already
there. We did that transition, if you remember, when we had Naples
Gateway, and we recommended those three lots be transitioned down from
C-i/T, or commercial uses, down to Livingston Road between that
residential house.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my point. There's no C-1/T
transition here. It goes from retail/commercial across the street to
residential; is that correct? MS. LAYNE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's where I find an
inconsistency personally with an element of the staff report in that I
don't think a roadway is a natural break, per se. We have elsewhere
used C-1/T as a reduction in transition. We've deemed C-1/T
compatible with residential uses and this would be, really mirror what
we've done in other places. Not looking to really argue about it,
that's just my personal feeling, is it kind of makes sense to put
C-1/T next to high intensity commercial, because putting a residence
right next to it, even if there is a street in between, I'd find that
incompatible.
MS. LAYNE: Well, that's why we tried to mention in the staff
report with that uniqueness in that there are some areas and that the
C-i/T, such as the City of Naples uses in Inverness, that this is a
possibility, that it could be a transition between those two places.
So there was a mix of -- sort of a mix of recommendation there, but we
tried to show you the possibility that this could happen, but, based
on the requirements that we have in the comp. plan now, that we were
recommending denial.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. As I look at -- across the road
you've got, obviously, a major marketplace and Cleveland Clinic.
You've got a four-lane -- six-lane at that point, because you've got
turn lanes, but a four-lane roadway there. You've got access -- I
mean, it's an activity center. You've got access to the interstate. I
mean, it's a very, very busy place. You've got the small PUD across
the road. I think realistically, while I disagree that just because a
piece of property hasn't sold as residential that it's not marketable,
I do agree that it would be tough to sell, considering its location,
and that it's probably an appropriate use.
The two concerns I have, and I know they have been expressed, are
the traffic impacts on the neighboring street, on 10th, of allowing
something in there. And also, you mentioned in your presentation --
and I know I've heard it several times -- concern about creep of
commercial up that road, and then the folks who live there want some
assurance that that's not going to turn into several commercial
properties, and all the impacts that has. And if those two points can
be addressed, if we can't -- if we can make sure we're not going to
have a big traffic impact, and we can somehow assure that this won't
creep up the road, I'm more comfortable with it. If we can't assure
those things, then despite the fact it makes logical sense with the
four-lane road and a PUD across the other road, I'm not sure I can go
there.
So, I need some assurance of how we can address those two issues.
MS. LAYNE: I don't know if staff can assure you at this point
because the next person has the right, once it becomes part of the
activity center, then they can make the same request. And then we're
basically looking at the same situation with transition, well, we'll
transition another C-1/T type which is next to another single family.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That defies logic, because C-1/T is the
transitional zoning. When it was created it was supposed to be the
last stand.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thus the word transition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. And so I understand you're saying,
that it can happen, but it's an illogical step to transition a
transitional use.
MS. LAYNE: Right. But I'm saying, they can come in and request
it and the board or someone's going to have to take the stand that
this next one we're going to say no, we're not going to amend the
comp. plan to allow that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you this. I mean, does
someone have the right to come in and ask for an industrial use there,
to ask?
MS. LAYNE: Not for an industrial use.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They couldn't ask?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, a comp. plan amendment they could
ask.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I mean, my point is somebody
could come ask --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anything.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- anything they want but that doesn't
mean it's a logical happening that they will get that. MS. LAYNE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't think that you could leap frog
C-1/T uses. There are places in the land development code that say
that you simply cannot perpetuate C-1/T time after time after time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, that's true.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I remember that in there.
Mr. Arnold, is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: Sort of. For the record, Wayne Arnold, Planning
Services Director.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sort of.
MR. ARNOLD: We're in the transition of adopting new
comprehensive plan amendments which do change the nature of your C-1
district. But, in essence, I think what we're really talking about,
any future change is going to require a comp. plan amendment to make
the next lot part of the activity center, as this requires. So I
don't think there's a precedent established here, if that's part of
the question. And again, it's going to have to come back to a public
hearing process to make any future lots to the east.
And just as a point, I think there are many things we could do if
we're inclined to support a comprehensive plan change here to look at
part of the zoning action that follows, and then some of the site plan
relationships to restrict access to right turn -- or left turn and
right turn out only so that traffic cannot proceed east on 10th
Avenue. And then it can only -- I think we're going to be looking at
a signalized intersection here at Napa Way.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with you, Commissioner
Constantine. You know, we can't legally bind future boards, but, if
this were to be approved today, it would -- I would only support it if
it's stated on the record that this is indeed a transitional use to a
residential use on the east side. And that being on the record makes
it very, very difficult for someone to come in later and transition
the transitional use. It defies the logic. So, I'm comfortable with
that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Layne, was this activity center
originally laid out as a square activity center and then later
re-configured to its current day shape?
MS. LAYNE: No, Commissioner. This is one of the few activity
centers that was site specific.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So this particular piece of property
has never been in the activity center? MS. LAYNE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No questions yet. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No questions.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had some contact and correspondence
from several members of the public and the petitioner on this item,
but I intend to make my decision based on what I hear in this hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have had some conversations and will
make my decision based on all of the legal information.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same disclosure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have had contact from the petitioner and
have received other information, but I'll base my decision on all the
information that's been provided.
MS. LAYNE: And one final comment, and Wayne briefly mentioned
it. If the board does recommend approval to the comp. plan amendment,
it should be tied to the specific re-zone and be limited to medical
use only and subject to the site plan.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do I have a motion on these --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Speakers, maybe.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Speakers. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You get thirty days' break-in period.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know. I'll learn. I'll learn.
Speakers, please, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The first speaker is Keith Monk and then Gary --
Gregory Pryer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we usually hear from the petitioner
before the speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We usually do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that going to be how we do it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that's your desire.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Bruce Anderson and I'm here representing Dr. Manuel Pena, who
is here in the audience today on this petition.
I would like to deliver to the court reporter and distribute to
each of the board members a small hearing booklet that will have some
of the reduced copies of exhibits that we'll be referring to today,
and I will go ahead and address the comprehensive plan map amendment
as well as the re-zone petition together in order to save time.
First of all, all we're -- all Dr. Pena is asking for is a
one-story, medical use, medical office and spa for just himself. He
is a plastic surgeon here in town.
The history of this property, of this particular lot, is unique.
I would refer you to Exhibit 2 in the book that I just handed out and
point out here on the wall, this is Lot 41 right here, the lot in
question. And it is a unique circumstance because, as originally
planned, Lot 41 was not a corner lot. It was greater than five acres,
in fact. And it was only as a result of a taking by the State of
Florida in 1976 that this lot became a corner lot and wound up being
at a commercial intersection. The State of Florida took part of Lot
41 and relocated a roadway that is now known as Napa Boulevard. So I
would stress that to you in terms of precedence because we are dealing
with a very unique circumstance that this particular property finds
itself in. Also, the same people who owned the property back when the
state did the taking are still the current owners today. They have
the lot under contract with Dr. Pena.
Because this lot split occurred and less than half the original
lot is left in private ownership, we believe that this is a special
circumstance that is not at all applicable to any of the other lots in
this area. This property is also unique from the other lots in the
area because it is on an intersection with three other corners, and
the other three corners are all commercial, urban activity centers.
Exhibit 3 in the book that I passed out to you is an affidavit of
the owners of the property who have it under contract with Dr. Pena
which states that since 1985 they've had the property on the market,
without success. The only written offers they have received have been
for commercial uses. And although they have had inquiries for
residential uses, potential buyers have lost interest upon learning
about the extent of surrounding commercial uses, both planned and
built.
I would next draw your attention to this blown-up photo of the
intersection here. This is a view from the corner of the subject
property. Directly across the street is a Mobil station, convenience
store and a HcDonald's. Then here we have the entrance to The
Vineyards. We can see Cleveland Clinic under construction over here,
and over here in this far corner is the location of the Astron Plaza
PUD, which has been approved for 110,000 square feet of office uses at
a maximum height of up to forty-two feet or three stories. Also,
please note the heavy traffic that is backed up at this intersection.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have this really new technology
called panoramic cameras. You may want to put it on next year's
Christmas list.
MR. ARNOLD: I'll certainly give that some thought.
This is -- this corner lot is the odd corner out at the urban
activity center. And also I would point out that this particular lot
juts out into the intersection fifty feet farther than the other three
corners of this commercial intersection. So it's much more exposed.
We will present some testimony, which I will need to get on the
record, after I finish speaking, that this lot is not suitable for a
single family residential development, and that there is no market
demand for residential use on this lot.
Now, in the beginning this started out as a simple re-zone
petition for commercial infill, C-i/T, because the property abuts
urban commercial zoning on two sides. Planning staff said, although
we don't have a problem with the compatibility with what Dr. Pena is
proposing with a single story office and estate single family,
commercial infill only applies in the urban area, and it cannot be
applied to property that merely abuts the urban area, as this lot
does. Dr. Pena cooperated with Planning staff and subsequently filed
a plan amendment, that you have before you, after he negotiated an
extension to the contract for the property.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're saying that this property is not in
the urban area?
MR. ANDERSON: Not at present, no, sir. No, sir. This simple
map amendment would include this lot in the urban area by making it a
part of the activity center and limiting its use to medical use.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was under the understanding that the
urban area, urban boundary was out one mile east of 951.
MR. ANDERSON: It dips here. It does not include this property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that because of the Estates
designation?
MS. LAYNE: What he's trying to say, this is not in the Future
Land Use element as part of the Golden Gate area master plan and so
it's not eligible for C-1/T.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I see. Continue, please.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Also, I would refer you -- well, this
map amendment is tied to a very specific re-zone, which was the first
thing filed. We have a very specific site plan, which has more
restrictive requirements in the land development code for landscaping
and buffering and building height, and we have also included a
limitation on the hours that Dr. Pena's facility could be open. I
would refer to you Exhibit 1 in the booklet that I handed out, which
is a reduced colored copy of the site plan that we are committing to
and it shows the landscape detail.
The primary factor that staff seems to be relying on in their
recommendation on the map amendment is about Napa Boulevard providing
an acceptable transition. In my experience a transition area in
Collier County has typically meant heavy landscape buffering or a
wall, not the sole vehicular access point for commercial uses.
I would also note that last week this commission approved an
agreement to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Pine
Ridge Road and Napa Boulevard, and that also is included in your
exhibit book.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, would that be the undated
agreement? Because I'm looking at something with my signature and no
date on it. I assume you just included the staff report and then
threw the signature page on at the last minute.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I was about to have a little
problem with Records on that one.
MR. ANDERSON: Now, to contrast the staff recommendation on the
plan amendment, the report on the re-zone petition, which addresses
the real life ground level compatibility considerations, has many good
things to say about this project. Number one, it has the
characteristics of single family residential, with a maximum height
limit of one story. They also say development of the property is
consistent with the traffic development of the growth management plan
and the traffic intensity should not adversely affect the comfort and
safety of existing uses on adjacent public roads.
The staff report say that this project provides appropriate
transition, necessary buffering transition to the estates for more
intensive commercial zoning. The staff report says the change will
allow the property to be developed with uses at lot dimensions and
development regulations which are already common to the surrounding
developed neighborhood.
They go on to say the applicant's development standards,
landscape buffers, traffic circulation and architectural standards
reflect a quality project. And finally, they conclude that the site
will act as a transition to adjacent residential property.
Now, there is a split of opinion in the surrounding neighborhood
on this project. Dr. Pena hosted a neighborhood barbecue on this
property back in November 1996, before we ever filed the petition, to
introduce himself, to explain his proposal and to answer questions and
concerns. Another meeting was held this past December. Some
neighbors recognize that this corner piece is right for commercial
development and want to lock in a low intensity transitional use with
the development standards that Dr. Pena finalized after meeting with
his neighbors. And when the surrounding residents do get up to speak,
I would appreciate it if they would indicate on this plat map here
just exactly where their property is located.
That's all I have to say. I do need to bring up and have briefly
speak Robert Duane and Rick Armalavage. I need to have their
testimony on the record. They have both testified many times before
you. I would ask that Mr. Duane be accepted as an expert on land use
planning and that Mr. Armalavage be accepted as an expert in the field
of real estate appraisal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. ANDERSON: And after they finish, any of us will be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
MR. DUANE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Robert
Duane. I will try to be brief. It will take me three or four minutes
to highlight some of the testimony Mr. Anderson asked me to enter into
the record this morning.
I'd like to cover four points. The first is, I would like to
rebut some of the recommendations that are in the staff report on the
plan amendment. I would briefly then like to discuss existing
conditions around the property, and then I would like to conclude with
a discussion of the proposed plan and the proposed development
standards. The conclusion of my presentation will be that the subject
property is not well suited for a single family use but it is for a
transitional use, as Mr. Anderson indicated to you.
Point one, beginning with the plan amendment, the staff made --
had some discussion in their report about there being more zoning in
the general area than there would be a demand for commercial uses at
this location. I would just like to point out that in the analysis of
activity centers that was done in our evaluation and appraisal report,
there really was no analysis per se of the demand within this activity
center. I think that point, coupled with the fact that we have the
Cleveland Clinic across the street, which, typically, medical
facilities of this size will generate from within and outside the
general area demand for these kinds of facility, gives you a
sufficient basis for you to determine that, at this particular
location, that we can determine that a medical facility could be
supported in the marketplace as evidenced by the doctor's petition
that's before you today.
Secondly, I disagree with Napa Way being a natural break. In all
due respect to Hiss Layne, typically transitional uses are identified
through a step down in height or a reduction in development intensity,
wall treatment, berms, landscape buffers and the like, to soften the
edge. We don't have a soft edge on the edge of Astron Plaza. I'll
briefly go through the proposed development plan for that project and
its standards, but suffice to say we have a very abrupt transition in
uses here, and I believe the 2,500 vehicles which are generated per
day in Astron Plaza's TIS don't really bridge the gap between the
transition that, in my opinion, is appropriate at this location.
And thirdly, just to touch upon a point that Commissioner Hancock
brought up. On a county-wide basis within the urban area, and I'll
grant to you, we're on the edge of the urban area, but our policy has
always been to encourage transitional uses next to activity centers.
In fact, we've amended our plan within the last several years to allow
that transition to occur across street boundaries. And I would submit
to you, this may be the only property remaining in the urban area that
does not have that privilege.
I would submit to you, based upon the existing conditions and the
unique nature of this particular request, that we should have an
opportunity to present our petition before you, and hopefully you'll
support us.
Regarding the existing conditions on the property here, I believe
Mr. Anderson highlighted those, but you see in the red the commercial
facilities that are located around the subject property. I would also
like to indicate to you that in the staff report they indicated that
Pine Ridge Road had 12,000 vehicles per day. That number, based on
most recent traffic counts, is 28,000 vehicles a day, and there's
every indication that the traffic will probably increase along Pine
Ridge Road.
I would also like to point out to you the separation of the
subject property, which is right here, separated by a 150 foot right
of way from the Mobil Gas Station on the north side of the street. So,
again, we have conditions, in my mind, that are not particularly
conducive to supporting residential development at this corner,
particularly with an intersection that is going to be signalized in
the near future.
I would like to briefly touch upon Astron Plaza. This is the
approved PUD master plan that permits approximately 110,000 feet. The
development standards, in my mind, are relatively permissive for this
development. We have a twenty-five-foot setback that is required from
Napa Way, which is, again, adjacent to the subject property. We have
a fifty-foot separation along 10th Street South and we have a
twenty-five-foot setback along Pine Ridge Road. A variance was also
approved to increase the height from thirty-five feet to forty feet in
the recent past, which, while that's a three-story structure, we
don't, again, have any stepping down of the building height. We can
have that four-story structure within twenty-five feet of Napa Way,
which, in my mind, is really not transitional zoning when you look at
the traffic intensity, several thousand vehicles a day, combined with
building heights and not very restrictive setback requirements.
If I can conclude? With the proposed plan and contrasted to some
of the development standards of nearby property, the subject property
has a seventy-five-foot setback from Pine Ridge Road, the same setback
as required in the estate zoning district, in contrast to the
twenty-five feet that's permitted in Astron Plaza. We have a
separation of a sixty-foot vegetated easement along the 10th Street
right of way and we have an additional thirty feet of separation
before we get to our first parking space. So, in effect, we have
almost a hundred foot separation from the right of way to the edge of
our pavement, and almost a 200 foot setback from 10th Street South,
whereas Astron Plaza was permitted within fifty feet of 10th Street
South. So I think we're beginning to distinguish ourselves from our
neighbors and trying to step the zoning down as a generally accepted
planning practice.
We have extensive landscaping throughout this project. We exceed
all the requirements of landscape buffering and screening. We include
a type C buffer along 10th Street and along Napa Way, which is a
fifteen-foot buffer with trees on the fifteen-foot space. So we'll
have a very dense vegetated area there. Again, we're limiting the
development envelope to one story, about 12,000 square feet, which is
about a ten percent floor or building coverage ratio, which is
substantially below the typical or average building coverage
requirement you find in Collier County, which is about 1.7, at least
based on some of the background information in our current
comprehensive plan.
So, I think, in summary, the plan that we're setting forth is a
good use for this particular piece of property. We also have
architectural, integrated architectural controls, limitations on hours
of operation, as Mr. Anderson noted, and pretty much the complete
package to try to make this property to be a good neighbor.
In summary, my conclusion is that the subject property, again, is
not well-suited for single family use. It begs for some kind of a
transitional use, as we would find in other similar locations
throughout Collier County, and I would encourage you to take in the
unique conditions of this property and base your decision upon that.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for
your indulgence.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Questions from the commissioners? Nothing.
Thank you, Mr. Duane.
MR. ARHALAVAGE: Commissioners, I'm Rick Armalavage, for the
record. I'm an HMI here locally. I've been in Naples for nineteen
years. I've been in front of the board many times, and I'm also a
state certified general appraiser. I have been asked by Mr. Anderson
to study the property and determine marketability and economic
feasibility of use. Specifically, is the site marketable for
residential use? Secondarily, if not, is there an appropriate use for
the site?
My conclusions -- I'll try to keep this very brief. There is no
quantifiable demand for residential use at that location, and I'll
give you three basic reasons. Traffic patterns, heavy traffic.
Secondarily, the existing land use patterns that are beginning to
unfold in that area are already taking shape. And, thirdly, wherever
you go throughout the county or the city where you have unique
situations like this, the pattern is for commercial use. And
primarily, when you're abutting up to residential, some form of
transitional office type use.
Ideal use for the site, in my opinion, is for a professional
office. Medical use would be ideal. Reasons being, it's compatible,
it would not create any diminution of value to the surrounding
properties, residential. It's a complementary use. It complements
the existing medical and it is complementary in terms of design with
the surrounding residential. It is a transitional use between the
more intensive use and the residential. Fourthly, it's a consistent
use in terms of the way Dr. Pena has had the property designed, the
design standards, the scale of the building, the landscape designs.
So, it will have minimal impact, if any, on the residential uses
surrounding this.
Lastly, in terms of market demand, there is no quantifiable
market demand for residential. There is quantifiable demand for
commercial use, primarily medical office. Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions from the commissioners?
Mr. Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to reiterate, how will the
neighboring, neighboring residential estates zoned properties,
particularly those directly to the east, be impacted by a development
like this that you propose?
MR. ARHALAVAGE: I would say minimally, if at all, in terms of
value. I think the impacts have already been established by the
existing land use patterns in the -- and the traffic patterns out in
that area.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions?
Thank you, Mr. Armalavage.
MR. ARHALAVAGE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Anderson, are there any more speakers
that you have?
MR. ANDERSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We'll go to public speakers, then.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First public speaker is Keith Honk, and then
Gregory Pryer.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Anderson, would you mind taking down your
display, please, so we can -- MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
MR. HONK: My name is Keith Honk and I'm a resident of 10th
Avenue Southwest.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you show us where you live on that map,
please? Could you do that?
MR. HONK: Yes. This one here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the number, when you come back to
the microphone?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just point to it.
MR. HONK: Fifty-six.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. MONK: I wanted to throw out -- a couple of things were
mentioned that I didn't realize were going to be said, and I just want
to address those real quick and maybe later somebody can answer them
from the Planning people.
I was under the impression that this property was zoned
residential, Golden Gate Estates residential. And they mentioned it
was mixed use, and I'd never heard that before, and I just wondered
what that exactly meant.
MS. LAYNE: In the Golden Gate master plan there is a land use
category called estates mixed use residential, and that is what this
is designated for land use. Your zoning is E estates. So this is a
land use designation of estates mixed use.
MR. MONK: Is my property zoned the same description?
MS. LAYNE: Yes. For your land use. Your zoning is the estates.
The land use is estates mixed use.
MR. MONK: Okay. Mention was made of a transition and the fact
that this road would not necessarily be a natural transition. I don't
know why anyone would think that a road isn't a natural transition,
because I think it is. And so, I mean, I think that, you know, that's
a non-valid point.
Traffic impact. Traffic impact is going to be greatly affected
in our street. We already have people speeding down there to cut out
two lights instead of going down to Pine Ridge and turning left from
Logan. And that's only going to increase when there's commercial
property that needs to be accessed. Napa Way was put in, I guess in
1976, because there was no access to Logan other than through 10th,
and it was needed to access that area.
I moved to Collier County in 1983 and was looking for somewhere
to raise my family and purchase some land and to build a house. Before
choosing the neighborhood to raise my family, I checked the zoning and
the future development of the area because I planned to live there for
a period of time. At that time Pine Ridge Road stopped at Napa. And
I didn't build there for two years because I wanted to time the
building until that was opened up and my street would become a
residential street. I missed that by about two weeks and had a
traffic jam outside my house for the first two weeks but, anyway, that
went away. I don't want the same thing happening again.
The Pine Ridge Extension, when it opened, I was led to believe
that Napa Boulevard would no longer be necessary to access Logan and
that it actually would be closed. That never happened. I never
pursued that, but that was the purpose of that road, and I don't know
why that was never done. Maybe the planning committee can address
that issue. But that was the reason originally.
We knew about the activity center zoning. I was actually pleased
about that because we felt it would be controlled and down the street
a little bit and not affecting us in our residential area.
In 1989 a proposal to approve a commercial use, which included
gas stations and other twenty-four hour uses, was turned down by this
board because of the impact to the residents on 10th Avenue, and that,
I think, should be noted.
The -- I built my house there because I wanted to live in a
residential area. And currently, even without the proposed
commercial, we're experiencing traffic on 10th to access that
cut-through with speeds well over the posted speed limit, and that's
been documented. My children live on that street and over a dozen
other children do, and that's why they live there, is because they
expected it to be residential.
There are eight homes on 10th Avenue that back onto Pine Ridge
Road on the side of the street the property that's proposed -- where
the property re-zone is proposed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That means your time is up. Can you wrap up
your comments, please?
MR. MONK: Oh, okay. Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that.
Anyway, there is no commercial property on that side of the
street right now. They've had no problems selling those lots to
people and building residential homes. And I have never seen a sign
on that property that didn't read commercial. And it might have been
advertised for a long period of time and never -- but I've never seen
a sign that actually said anything but commercial, and that's probably
why they have not had very many people trying to buy it as a
residence. And, let's face it, this, you know, this is an issue of
money. I mean, the price that it will command as a commercial piece
of property is, is much greater than it will as a residential piece of
property. It's got nothing to do with, you know, helping the
transition or the neighborhood or anything like that. I mean, it's
just a, just a money issue. That property will be sold eventually and
someone will build something. There'll be a hundred-odd feet between
them and the PUD. So I don't see that as a valid argument.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Monk.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Monk, would you prefer Napa
Boulevard was closed?
MR. MONK: Sorry?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you prefer Napa Boulevard was
closed?
MR. MONK: Yes. Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Gregory Pryer, and then Jose
Herrera.
MR. PRYER: Good morning. I reside at 5507 10th Avenue
Southwest, and if I could figure out this map -- is this Logan over
here?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. PRYER: One off the corner, so probably 107. I purchased the
two --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name, please, for the record.
MR. PRYER: Gregory Pryer.
I purchased the two and a quarter acre residential lot in
December of '86 for the purpose of building my retirement home. I
carefully checked and was assured that 10th Avenue Southwest, both
north and south, was zoned residential. I also was informed that,
once the Pine Ridge Road Extension was completed, that Napa Boulevard
would be closed. All avenues east and west of Logan Boulevard, north
of Green Boulevard and south of Vanderbilt Beach Road, with the
exception of our 10th Avenue Southwest, are dead-end streets. They
now enjoy the serenity, the peace and quiet of living on a cul-de-sac.
We, on the other hand, are having a traffic nightmare. Drivers use our
street, as said before, to beat the light at Logan Boulevard and Pine
Ridge. They speed, they litter and they also cause property damage.
My next door neighbor and myself have each lost four mailboxes in
1997. Every morning I pick up a multitude of litter. These
occurrences are not being done by our neighbors but are being caused
by transients who should not be on our street in the first place. All
this is occurring before the addition of the proposed doctor's office
and, God forbid, the buildup of Astron Plaza. With or without the
approval of this petition, we need Napa Boulevard closed.
In 1992 I had a custom home built. It is reconcilable (sic) to
me, how could anyone propose to direct or to actively change the
ground rules that we, our neighbors, live by?
The petitioners have made a gross misrepresentation and I find it
inexcusable. They state that said property has been offered for
months as a residential lot without success, thereby causing them a
hardship. Nothing could be further from the truth. Said property has
been listed in the HOS as commercial and for a price tag of $250,000.
Dr. Pena has supposedly agreed to pay them 219. Michael Douglas in
the movie "Wall Street" said, "Greed is good." Obviously it's good
for the DuHars and for Dr. Pena. The DuHars bought the 2.3 acres in
September of 1979 for $9,100, and under hardship, are willing to sell
it for $219,000. Greed is good. Greed is good for the doctor as
well.
There are a multitude of properties in the area which are already
zoned for this purpose. Astron Plaza is just across the street. But
even if the owners of Astron were willing to sell 2.3 acres at their
cost to Dr. Pena, it would cost them $500,000, not the 219,000.
greed is good for both petitioners.
Now, what about the owners of the contiguous five acres to the
east? They had a for sale sign for five acres for $55,000. Once they
heard of the proposed DuHar bonanza, the sign came down. Greed is you
can get 219,000 for 2.3 acres. How long before these people petition
you for a similar zone change and how are you going to tell them the
DuHars deserve a windfall and they can't get one?
I drafted and helped circulate a petition, which I believe each
of you have, and you can see from that that the residents
overwhelmingly supported the denial of the re-zoning request.
In conclusion, I would like to compliment the county staff. At
all times they have been knowledgeable, professional and courteous to
us. To Mr. Weigel, Harjorie Student, Elaine, Bryan Milk and others,
we thank them for their cooperation and their understanding.
Now, staff recommended denial of both petitions for many reasons.
There's no need for additional commercial development. Napa Way
provides a natural break. There are no land uses within the Golden
Gate area master plan that they can fit this into. And, since it
didn't meet the one-quarter mile requirement, it doesn't qualify for
the C-1/T zoning exceptions.
So, based on all of the above, I would like to ask you to support
your staff and deny both of the petitions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask you a question, sir?
MR. PRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your background?
MR. PRYER: Well, I was a CPA but I'm retired. I was an elected
official four terms as a town councilman in Orange County, New York,
so I know the game and I know the pressures that you're put under as
far as developers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, you don't. This is not a game.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you. Do you have any -- I don't
mean to get personal, but do you have investments for your retirement,
like stock market investments or CDs? MR. PRYER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there any greed involved in that; you
intend to make a profit, don't you?
MR. PRYER: Well, I didn't go and change the company. I bought
stock.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For what purpose?
MR. PRYER: I bought it as investment. But I didn't go change
the ground rules. Like, you take something that's residential and you
change it to commercial, you're certainly changing the ground rules.
I don't do that on any of my investments. I can't go into the New
York Stock Exchange and say, "Gee, I want to change the ground rules."
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I see.
MR. PRYER: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If Napa Boulevard -- I'm sorry. Go
ahead.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, then Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pryer, traffic is your primary
concern? I know you guys have a lot of cut-through there now and
you're concerned about --
MR. PRYER: At this point, I would say so.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If Napa Boulevard -- would you prefer
Napa Boulevard be closed?
MR. PRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions. When -- you built your
home in '92, you said?
MR. PRYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So Napa Boulevard was connected when you,
when you built your home. That connection existed? MR. PRYER: Not when I bought.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The right of way for Napa was secured in
1976.
MR. PRYER: No. Napa was there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Right.
MR. PRYER: Pine Ridge Extension wasn't completed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But when you built your home in '92
MR. PRYER: It was complete.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It was completed. Okay. Have you taken
any type of polls of property owners along 10th regarding road closure
in that area?
MR. PRYER: Not at this point. Although, when circulating the
petition, almost everybody indicated they would be in favor.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. PRYER: It was even mentioned in the petition, but not in a
direct way.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you filed complaints regarding
speeding with the sheriff's office on your street?
MR. PRYER: I haven't, but I know, you know, that other people
have.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Because we obviously do have an
enforcement issue there, regardless of this re-zone. If people are
speeding there is indeed an enforcement issue.
MR. PRYER: Well, it's such a small problem for the Sheriff's
Department. I don't think, you know, it justifies putting somebody
there on a daily basis.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the last time I checked, you paid
taxes, so your problem should be his problem as it is ours.
MR. PRYER: They put a counter there which indicated the speed
limits, and I think Mr. Herrera will indicate some of the findings
that they had in his presentation.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. PRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Jose Herrera and then Lee Houston.
MR. HERRERA: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my
name is Jose Herrera. I'm a resident of 10th Avenue Southwest and I
live right here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What number is that, 58?
MR. HERRERA: Less than 300 feet from the subject property:
I'm here to speak in opposition to the request of a re-zoning of
the subject property. The majority of the houses or the homes located
on 10th Street Southwest are on two and a half or one and a quarter
acres, so this particular property fits very well with the sizes of
the other properties because it's 2.3 acres. So, basically, a lot of
properties are of the same size. The subject property is currently
zoned Golden Gates Estates and it's on the Golden Gate area master
plan and future land use element of the growth element. The subject
reason they state to commercial one transition is inconsistent with
the Golden Gate area master plan and future land use.
The reason is, we're undermining the concert of the activity
center, by creating a strip or disorganized part of the commercial
development. Napa Way is an appropriate and natural buffer for
commercial to residential. As you can see in that drawing, at the
present time the traffic impact for the proposed medical clinic and
the Astron Plaza would generate 2,700 cars, plus 285 cars per day for
the medical clinic. If only one-third of those cars turn into 10th
Avenue Southwest, we would have in excess of 1,400 cars per day
traveling over Logan Boulevard. That would make a very congested
area. Besides that, 10th Avenue Southwest was not designed, the
infrastructure of that road, was not designed to handle 1,400 cars per
day. The speed of the traffic, according to the transportation
department with the counter, the average speed was fifty miles an
hour. I have made complaints to the Sheriff's Department. They built
a radar unit, and one morning I clocked a car at seventy-two miles an
hour driving down that road.
In my opinion, this re-zoning would decrease the value of the
family homes in this area. There is no need, as is stated in the long
range planning report, there is thirty-six abundant commercial spaces
within the Golden Gate area. Also, the Astron Plaza, the Cleveland
Clinic, will give you enough commercial and medical use space and
square footage where this project can go into.
If we close Napa Way, this would be a perfect transition for the
Astron Plaza and that property. If done correctly, if given enough
space, that Napa Way would be an excellent transition. It would --
and this lot could be sold as a residential unit. As with the
Cleveland Clinic and probably a future hospital, the Astron Plaza, and
many other commercial developments in the area, this would put a real
demand on single family homes in this area, because people like to
live close to where they work. If we decrease the amount of land for
private property, we are putting a tremendous amount of green space on
residential use in the area.
So, please, I urge you to deny both the growth management plan
and the re-zone for this property. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Constantine, a question?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the displays because that
really helps make the point. But going back to your counts, itws a
small thing, but one-third of 3,650 is not in excess of 1,400. I think
itws about 1,100 and --
MR. HERRERA: No. I included the current traffic through 10th
Avenue Southwest, close to 475 cars per day.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very good. The point I was going to
make is, really, the only thing we can consider as part of that right
now is the projection, and the number 285 is what could be created.
And so when we look at a third of that, itws a little bit of a harder
MR. HERRERA: Well, you cannot deny the fact that that would be
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Herrera, let me finish my point.
MR. HERRERA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Itws a little bit of a harder sell to
say that 90 additional cars are going to be the burden. I agree with
you, and Iwm guilty of driving through there sometimes myself. MR. HERRERA: I know you are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is an unnecessary amount of
traffic, particularly for an estate zoned property. And I was going
to ask -- and then your final presentation there makes it clear, you
would prefer if Napa Way was closed off. That would really solve the
problem?
MR. HERRERA: Absolutely. And that would be the perfect -- the
perfect condition to buffer Astron Plaza from the residential
properties next to that, and that property should not be turned, you
know, should not be turned commercial because that could be a very
excellent site for a residential unit. And if you want examples of
those, there are many homes, for example, on Pine Ridge Road, that
back into Pine Ridge Road that you can barely see them. And they are
right on that corner, and many other corners too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. I have a question for staff.
Whatws the distance from Napa Way down to Logan?
COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: Like how far on 10th?
MS. LAYNE: From Pine Ridge down to 10th?
MR. HERRERA: No. Logan.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: From Napa and 10th to Logan and 10th.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To Logan and 10th.
MS. LAYNE: It's almost a mile.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Almost a mile?
MS. LAYNE: Those Golden Gate Estates are usually a mile wide,
and your Napa starts at this point and Logan is about right here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But Napa isn't a natural break
there. 1-75 is closer to the natural break. So there's probably
seven or eight-tenths of a mile.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, several of people have indicated their
desire to have Napa Way closed. If I lived on there and I wanted to
access Publix Grocery Store, which is right across the street, I'm not
sure I would be very pleased about closing Napa Way.
MR. HERRERA: It's a trade off.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a point.
Mr. Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what we're -- Commissioner
Constantine hit on it. What we're hearing is a concern about traffic
on 10th Southwest, and what Dr. Pena is proposing is but a mere drop
in the bucket compared to what Astron Plaza is going to present or
produce. The issue of whether Napa Way should or shouldn't be closed,
there's no justification in the re-zone in front of us to physically
close that roadway based on 285 cars a day. So we, today, don't have
the information in front of us to make a decision whether to close
Napa Way or not. I think what needs to happen is that the residents
of 10th Avenue Southwest, regardless of today's decision, need to move
forward with our traffic calming process like all other neighborhoods
have, which looks at the volume of trips, where they go, how they go,
what speeds they drive, and makes recommendations to reduce in some
way the traffic on that roadway. We do have a procedure set up for
that, but to tie the future of Astron Plaza in today and to try to
make any road closure decision I think is premature.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. And let me explain why I
continued to ask that question is, I don't know if we have the
authority to try to close that off today without that being an
advertised part of it anyway.
My point is just that that seems to have been a repetitive
concern, is the transportation, the road impact, and that may be an
effective way to work this thing long-term. We would have to have a
separate public hearing.
I think you're correct when you say there are probably some
residents in there who would not be enthusiastic about having to drive
eight-tenths of a mile down and eight-tenths of a mile back to get to
Mobil.
MR. HERRERA: Honestly, I don't do it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Herrera. You may be seated.
We're finished.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I just think that that's
something they have raised and it's a valid issue and one that we need
to weigh out among the neighborhood and if eighty-five percent of them
want to come back and close it off, then great, we can look at that.
I don't think that will negatively impact Pine Ridge.
I think you're right. There's going to be a few people who
aren't real enthusiastic about that either. That's why I've asked
each one of them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's good that we have --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just, it's good that we have this
information coming in front of us, but the 285 cars is not the issue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
Mr. Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing is, I think there are some
concerns about speeding. Somebody going seventy miles an hour down
there. But I find it hard to imagine that somebody is going to go
seventy miles an hour down 10th Street so they can get in there and
get a nose job or an ear bob, or something like that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They might be really anxious for that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have a terrific way of phrasing things
sometimes, Commissioner Norris.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Graphic.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Our last speaker on this subject is Lee Houston.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Houston?
MR. HOUSTON: My name is Lee Houston and I live at 5790 10th
Avenue Southwest.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can you show us up there on the map, please?
MR. HOUSTON: Lot 72.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. HOUSTON: I didn't come here today to speak to anybody about
anything, really. But I've heard some misrepresentations about the
people on my street. I have lived there for eight years. I owned the
lot for two years before that. One of the reasons I built that house
on that lot was because of Napa Way as being an access other than the
other end of the street, which is, two times a day, is almost
impossible to get out there, unless you make a right turn only.
And I think another thing was the traffic problem. There are
cars that come by quite fast, but most of them are, I'd say, under
forty or forty-five. They don't get up to seventy miles an hour. I've
never seen one of them. I'd call the police immediately with the
license plate number.
And there's another thing there. They seem to indicate that this
property or this street is not commercial. And I personally know of
four commercial projects operating on that street now. One of them or
two of them I've called in to the zoning people, and this was seven or
eight years ago. And when I called them back on it, they said, "Well,
it was in court," but they never done anything about it. And since
then they issued a building permit to add on this commercial project,
which is a cabinet building shop. And it's down about seven or eight
blocks, or lots, rather, from this property they're complaining about
now for a doctor to build, which is one store. Further down the
street there's two or three houses been built since then that have a
story and a half, or two story, houses, which they're not, you know,
if that's a one story area, which I don't think it is. But anyway, I
wanted to make that clear. There was a trucking company there when I
moved there on that street and they told me that had been
grandfathered in. Since then that property has sold and is now a
nursery. There's another nursery down at the other end of the street,
which has been there quite a while, has no frontage visible, except it
is operating off a five-acre plot in back of that.
So my recommendation would be to pass this, get this doctor's
clinic in there, and maybe this will be a buffer to stop the rest of
them. But I still would suggest that something be done about the
commercial projects that's operating there now. It does increase the
traffic with trucks. There's been a semitruck gone in there two or
three times with loads of hay. I don't know where they get it, but
they bring hay in there for those nurseries. And there's been other
commercial deliveries made to the cabinet shop, and there's a new
house there that's only two years old that has box type vans parked in
front of the house, mostly on the weekend. But it's obvious that
they're operating some kind of commercial endeavor there.
So my endeavor would be, my recommendation would be that you pass
this and let the doctor build this thing.
And I definitely don't approve of closing Napa. That gives me a
way out of the thing if I got to go out, even to turn right I'd only
have to go a half a block to the next light and turn back, you know,
to get out. And it's almost impossible to get out and make a left
turn on Logan twice a day.
I'd appreciate what you can do. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Houston.
I don't know what would be appropriate, but, Mr. Fernandez,
perhaps Mr. Houston, you might want to speak with Mr. Fernandez in
regard to those situations which you've cited, and if that's a problem
we can certainly address that concern with our staff. Thank you.
Does that conclude the public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, it does.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To the gentleman that was up and I snapped
at him, I apologize. But when you said that you understand the
pressures on this board, Dr. Pena is not a developer. He's a plastic
surgeon. The idea that there's some unknown pressure, some tremendous
pressure on this board to make this a commercial piece of property, it
just, it doesn't hold water. It's not true. Unfortunately, that's a
common perception that the media loves to write and talk about. But,
you know, I do apologize for snapping at you but I'm just a little
tired of hearing that, particularly in a case where there's an
individual property owner trying to do a project as opposed to some
1,200, you know, unit development.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Evil developer.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Evil, black hat developer, yes.
The second item is, one of the reasons -- the two reasons I hear
is traffic and greed. Traffic, we can address. Greed, if someone
offers me a million dollars for my $160,000 house, I'm not greedy by
taking it. I'd be a fool not to. So when Astron Plaza was approved
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You might have to do some gift disclosure,
though.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll just quit. How's that? I would just
quit and take the money and run.
But, when Astron Plaza was approved, it had, in essence, a
devaluing effect on the adjacent property by nature of the commercial
activity and the magnitude of the commercial activity. It, in essence,
had a long-term devaluing effect on the adjacent property, regardless
of an intervening right of way. This board is not responsible for
compensating that property owner unless it is indeed a taking.
Neither are we responsible for ensuring no one makes money by the sale
of property. So the idea of whether someone does or doesn't make
money on the property is not something we can base a decision on.
The issue before us today is one of compatibility and one of
transportation. On the transportation side it's clear to me from the
traffic impact statement or the traffic report that the majority of
the users of Dr. Pena's clinic or office will be coming on -- off of
Pine Ridge and back to Pine Ridge, not going to be coming from the
area or the community that would be using 10th Avenue Southwest. So
the actual impact of his land use change to 10th Street Southwest is
going to be minimal. That's not to say there isn't a problem we need
to address but I think there's a more appropriate forum to do that as
opposed to this re-zone, and we need to be more concerned with that as
Astron Plaza kicks in.
The traffic calming techniques I mentioned, I would encourage you
as a neighborhood to pursue them, but the statement that you don't add
commercial next to commercial zoning and call it buffering or
transitional, my background is in planning, and that's just simply not
true. If you have intense commercial use and you have a road in
between, that road does not block sound. It does not visually buffer
anything. For the people who live in the neighborhood, for them not
to see or hear things, something's got to be in between, and a roadway
doesn't cut it. Having a building, albeit one story, with improved
landscaping, over what exists and whatnot, provides both a visual and
sound buffer from that intersection. So it does lessen the impacts,
both noise and visual, to the adjacent properties. That is
transitional zoning, and it's used very commonly.
And so, on those items, understanding an outstanding traffic
issue that we really can't address fully today, I'm confident that
this is a good project that makes sense, that will stop the proposed
creep of commercial by creating the last transitional use from Astron
Plaza to the estates residential mixed use area.
For that reason I'm going to move that we approve --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second -- sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I need to close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move that we approve Petition
CP-97-04, which is the amendment to the future land use map.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make a quick comment, and
that is, I understand the concerns. I met with the residents there,
and I think your points are valid. I think the two concerns that are
very clear and very specific and very well-founded are the traffic
impacts, but I think, using Mr. Herrera's statistics, if one-third of
those are traveling on 10th, that's still only about ninety or a
hundred cars a day, and it was not a -- this project, which is how we
have to base our decision, isn't as bad as the overall impact. And I
agree with you, there is an overall concern there. I think separate
from this motion we might want to look at having our staff work with
the residents and looking at whether there is a preference to close
that off. I understand there's some people who don't want to, there's
a number of people who do want to, and we can look at that. But I
think that needs to be severed from this hearing.
But I've -- I have to agree that, as long as -- and I think you
enunciated it very well -- we have a very realistic way of making sure
this doesn't creep down the way, then it is a logical use. The
unfortunate reality is nobody -- it's unlikely that anyone is going to
build a residential home out on a property looking at that. And I
understand the concerns. I think there's a way to address the traffic
concerns, and I think we are addressing the creep concern.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Norris, any other comments?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 98-3, REGARDING PETITION R-97-2, BRUCE ANDERSON REPRESENTING
DR. MANUAL AND REGINA PEN REQUESTING REZONE FROM "E" ESTATES TO "C-i/T"
COHMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL TRANSITIONAL DISTRICT FOR A MEDICAL CLINIC FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF NAPA BOULEVARD
EXTENSION AND PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll also, as a companion item, move
approval with staff -- not with staff recommendation, excuse me --
with stipulations contained by the Planning Commission on Petition
R-97-2.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What were those stipulations?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They were already -- they were
incorporated but there was some discussion at the Planning Commission.
It's just merely a reference. I'm just moving approval of Petition
R-97-2.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any questions regarding that one?
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question for the board. If
there's no objection, can we ask Mr. Fernandez to direct someone in
transportation to get with Mr. Herrera and those folks and we can
explore the Napa Boulevard issue with them?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the traffic calming procedures.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great idea.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the traffic calming, I think, is
important as well.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm certainly willing to look at traffic
calming measures but, as far as closing that road, it's scheduled for
a light. I think to close that road would be a terrible mistake.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's got to be a significant litmus
test for that to happen and I don't see the elements there --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll just say they can look at that as
part of it and, obviously, it wouldn't be closing at Pine Ridge, it
would be closing at 10th anyway.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Obviously, but that means that everybody on
10th now, to go to town, has to go out to Logan, try to turn left on
Logan and come back down Pine Ridge Road --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my suggestion is --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And there's a traffic light right there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And they have --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion is, if we find that
ninety percent of the people that live on that road want to do that,
then maybe we ought to consider it. I don't know that we'll find that
but it's something that we ought to at least take a peek at.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One thing they need to consider, when they go
out to Logan, they're not going to have the benefit of a traffic
light.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And never will, due to the proximity to
the intersection of Pine Ridge.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. To the intersection. So this
is something they all need to think about, but this is not the issue
today. We have these two petitions before us. We certainly have
passed the first one and now we're to the second one, and that is in
favor with a 5-0 vote.
Okay. Moving on, then, to the next petition, PUD-84-23. I'm
sorry.
We are at the 12:00 hour. What's the desire of the board? We
have a few items left. We've got one that may be lengthy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is one item here that looks like
it will probably take a little time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Maybe we should take a little lunch break and
we'll all be sweeter personalities when we come back. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Unlikely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wouldn't guarantee that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll break until 1:00.
(Recess was taken.)
Item #1282
ORDINANCE 98-4, REGARDING PETITION PUD-84-23(1) THOMAS W. OLLIFF,
ADMINISTRATOR OF COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICES, REPRESENTING THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EAST NAPLES
COHMUNITY PARK PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A 150' HONOPOLE
COHMUNICATION TOWER ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH
OF AND ADJACENT TO THOMASSON DRIVE, SOUTH AND EAST OF AVALON ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the January 13th meeting
of the Board of County Commissioners, and we will proceed to Item
12 (B) (2) . Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon.
MR. MILK: For the record, Bryan Milk. I am presenting Petition
PUD-84-23(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've been doing these, Mr. Milk, with
some frequency and --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Signal?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, swearing?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I'm sorry, and it's even written down
here, obviously, I can't read. All petition -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now you tell us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know, sorry, guys, it had to come out.
All those people that wish to speak to this item, please stand
and I'll have the court reporter swear you in, please.
(Speakers were sworn.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, if I may, we've been
doing these at different areas, in order to test line of sight from
residential areas, and the fact that there are lighting -- lighting
poles that are 90 to a hundred feet in height in the near proximity,
do we have the exact same situation here? MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The only question I have on this
item, it's pretty straightforward, as I see we have no complaints.
The only question I have is the staff report says that revenue
generated from this lease will be used on-site. We tend to pool funds
for parks and rec. throughout the county. I don't see a reason why if
we're leasing a monopole site, the funds should be exclusively for
that site. I'd rather us see the funds go into parks and rec for
general use.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What about the one up at Veterans -- or at
Vineyards that we recently did?
MR. MILK: I think Mr. Olliff, at the last planning commission
meeting, made some references to some programs and facilities, that
the monies that would be generated from the monopole would be used to
offset some of these facilities at the East Naples Community Park and
perhaps put in the general fund, but there was a comment from one of
the planning commissioners that what are you gonna do with all this
revenue and Mr. Olliff stated that there was gonna be some fund
programs --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's behind you, if you want to let him --
MR. MILK: I'm sorry.
MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, the public services
administrator. What we had done at the Vineyards was dedicate the
revenue from the pole lease back into improvements at the park, and in
this particular case, the idea was that if the neighborhood was going
to suffer from the pole in their neighborhood, in their park, then we
would like to see the benefits stay within that same neighborhood.
In this particular case, most of the money would be earmarked
towards scholarships for summer camp children in the area who couldn't
afford to pay for them otherwise.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would be a shame to do something
different at this particular park where the need is really great.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just -- I'm concerned, you know,
out-years. You know, we get five, six years down the road and, you
know -- again, I'm just -- are we limiting ourselves unnecessarily is
my only question. If the rest of the board is not concerned with
that, that's fine. I'm not trying to stand in the way, I'm just
saying that's -- I'm not sure on-site is necessary.
MR. OLLIFF: This is a self-imposed restriction and if in the
future the revenues get to a point where there's really no legitimate
use for the funds within that particular park, then we and the board
can certainly make that decision to change it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's fair.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's fair. Leave it --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't want to rob parks that don't
have leases. In other words, others are getting revenues that they're
not -- you know, I'm just --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At the rate we're going, there may be a lot
of these poles. I'd hate to think of that, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: These aren't as bad as --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It could be a popular thing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: These aren't like the microwave towers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I understand, I know.
Okay. Anything further?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are there speakers?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any speakers on this issue?
MR. HCNEES: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Close the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing. Do we have a
motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, zero, noting Mr.
Constantine's absent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well noted.
Item #1283
RESOLUTION 98-15 EXTENDING THE TIHE LIHIT TO APRIL 13, 1998, REGARDING
PETITION R-97-7, COHMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL FOR THE NAPLES
R & D PARK AT LELY PUD LOCATED IHMEDIATELY SOUTH OF U.S. 41 - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Hr. Hilk.
Hoving on then to Petition R-97-7. We'll open the public
hearing. Mr. Reischl?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Swear in --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, swear in everybody. All right. All
those wishing to speak to this issue, please rise, and I'll have the
court reporter swear you in.
(Speakers were sworn.)
MR. REISCHL: Afternoon, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning
services. This petition comes to you under the provisions of the PUD
sunsetting section of the land development code.
We had heard -- through the process of these public hearings, we
had heard nothing from the petitioner until a week before the planning
commission hearing, at which time the petitioner talked to us and then
approached the planning commission and requested an additional 90 day
extension for this PUD sunsetting, 90 days from this date. The
petitioner has stated that this was due to some problems with a
contract purchaser. I'm sure he'll be able to speak a little more to
that point.
The planning commission did recommend that a 90 day extension be
given to the petitioner to submit a PUD amendment or a revised PUD,
since one of their considered options is to combine this with the
neighboring Lely Lakes PUD, and staff originally recommended that the
PUD be rezoned to agricultural, since that was the original zoning
district, but staff has no problem with an additional 90 days in order
to submit a -- an amended PUD.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only concern is that whether we down
zone to ag. or whether it's left at R&D, you know, any rezone's going
to have to come before us anyway.
MR. REISCHL: This is true, that's why staff had --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only concern is that if it comes in as
an R&D Park, there is a certain traffic generation associated with
that, and I can already hear the comparison of what was gonna be there
with an R&D Park to what could be there as a low density residential,
when in fact we've already proven that an R&D park isn't gonna work
there. I think the real comparison is ag.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How did we prove that an R&D isn't gonna
work there?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Easy. It can't be marketed, it can't be
sold, no one's buying it, it's been out there forever.
My point is that if you're gonna compare -- again, I'm not gonna
be buffaloed, if this comes before us by comparing a reduced impact of
a low density residential community versus an R&D Park because as far
as I'm concerned as of today, there's no R&D Park there, if we, you
know, take one action. So I just -- I wanted to at least get that out
there, but if you guys want a 90 day extension, I don't really oppose
that, but I'm not gonna -- I don't really plan on giving much merit
to, you know, looking at reduced impacts when this comes back as a
fezone.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, what would be the effect if we
fezone this to agriculture today and the petitioner's going to bring
something back within the next 90 days. It really is immaterial to
him, isn't it?
MR. REISCHL: Financial. It would be the difference between a
PUD amendment and a PUD.
(Commissioner Constantine enters the room.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's -- there's a difference in that
cost?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. Not --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much?
MR. REISCHL: About five hundred to a thousand dollars'
difference.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: These are different owners, though, aren't
they? The Lely Lakes PUD, is it owned by someone other than this --
MR. REISCHL: I believe it's both Lely Development Corporation.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we hear from the petitioner? I just
don't know enough about it to be able to ask questions about what the
need for the 90 days is until I hear that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't mind hearing from the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. If we can hear from the
petitioner at this time.
MR. RANKIN: Hi, I'm Bruce Rankin, I'm representing Lely
Development. I think Fred summarized pretty well what our situation
is. The Lely R&D project was encumbered by a purchase agreement. The
purchaser was unable to proceed and effectively disappeared for a
while, which made it difficult for our client to reestablish control
of that property.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you mind if I ask you, are you a
lawyer, a planner or do you work for the company?
MR. RANKIN: I'm a planner, I'm with Wilson, Miller.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, thank you.
MR. RANKIN: So combined with that is an opportunity that we're
looking at and it's well under way with Rookery Bay to sell a
significant portion of the Rookery -- of the Lely Lakes property to
Rookery Bay to preserve some of the wetlands on the southern portion
of the site. I can't tell you the exact area right now, because
that's where the discussion has been. That offer, which had been
pending for a while, really didn't materialize to a point where it
could be worked with until the end of October of this year, and it was
a little later than that that we were finally able to get -- track
down the purchaser and get the tract under control.
The approach here is -- and I'm -- I really don't -- I don't feel
like I can debate the issue of whether the R&D Park is real or not.
There is some market for some of the R&D type use on that -- on that
site, but the real intent here is if you -- the configuration of the
R&D Park interrupts a portion of the Lely Lakes property.
Assimilating it into the overall plan will help us develop the concept
that Lely Development is looking at now for the Lely Lakes and R&D
parcels combined, which is a golf resort or a major portion of the
land that is not sold to Rookery Bay would be used for golf -- golf
course, and it would be an actual reduction -- if you take the R&D
out, we're still looking at the reduction in the number of residential
units as a concept right now.
So what we were -- and there's more than just the application
fee, and I think, Tim, you understand that. In coming back with a new
application, it would take more time in the calendar -- more calendar
time, as well as the planning and consulting fees, to come back and
start over on the R&D Park. So what we've asked the staff and the
commission and are asking you to do is give us an opportunity over the
next 90 days to pull this program together and come back with an
application that would consolidate the two and identify the net
results, which we think in the end is gonna be quite acceptable to all
parties.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you explain to us the circumstances
under which or by which this property was allowed to lapse to this
point?
MR. RANKIN: I can't give you the details, other than that under
the purchase agreement it was the responsibility of the purchaser, and
without regaining control of the property, Lely Development was not, I
guess, technically in a position to reactivate or extend the PUD, and
it was -- it's been well over a year or more that it took to
reestablish contact with that -- that purchaser, so -- and the timing
was such that it was just -- that they were not in a position to do
anything until later and then the Rookery Bay issue complicated the
matters as well.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But I'm sure you can appreciate our
position, is that the official time to make these changes has expired
and now we're left in the position of having to -- what you're
requesting us to do is a modifications of our policies and rules, a
variation from them, I should say.
MR. RANKIN: Yes, I understand that. I'm not -- I can't speak to
whether there is other precedent for that at all. This wasn't an
intent to be precedent setting, but there were some rather complicated
extenuating circumstances that prevented Lely from really taking any
kind of official action until late in the year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Rankin, I certainly, you know, I
understand basically for us to down zone this to ag. now and then
entertain an application for an "increase" in density to some type of
residential 90 days from now, doesn't make a lot of sense. So if
you're confident something can happen, and you've already indicated
that we're probably not gonna be looking necessarily at an increase in
the number of units out there, if that's how it works out, that's
great.
I guess my reason for saying something on this was simply that
the old bait and switch is real popular sometimes. I didn't -- I
didn't look at who the agent or applicant was here and I'm not making
this at you, but when you come in for an application and someone says,
well, it could be this, so what I'm offering you is so much better.
That's happening a little too often around here, and so I didn't want
the comparison in 90 days to be, you were gonna have an R&D park, but
now look at this wonderful product I'm giving you. I just -- I didn't
want to hear that in 90 days, so if we're going to extend it --
MR. RANKIN: That's not the intent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. RANKIN: There may be, you could have had this residential
community -- now with a golf resort, even the residential community is
going to be lighter, but I don't think when you see the plans, that's
really gonna even need to come on the table, the impacts will all be
presented and I think you'll see that it fits very consistently.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that on the record, I'm comfortable
enough to do a 90 day extension on this, if the public hearing is
closed, and move forward with that, but I just -- I felt like I wanted
to avoid the other --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One question, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, are you sort of committing that when
this comes back as a PUD amendment, that it will be for residential?
MR. RANKIN: I can't say entirely. As I mentioned earlier, there
is some interest in a very much -- it's very much less than what was
out there, but there is some interest in some commercial use of that
property in -- I say commercial in more of an office or that type of
use, and with the resort, there are some commercial type uses that are
associated with the resort center, such as restaurant and pro shop and
things like that. So there's a little of that element in the resort
proposal.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. RANKIN: But --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, you're saying that some of the
residential portion of the PUD, the Lely Lakes PUD, is you're --
you're negotiating to sell that off to Rookery Bay.
MR. RANKIN: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So those units will be lost from the PUD,
those residential units?
MR. RANKIN: I didn't say it that way, but I know that the
program that we are going to be proposing will be for fewer units and
fewer acres, so there is -- and there is a correlation there. I don't
know if the actual density per acre is going to be the same or reduced
but it won't be increased.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's where I was leading with this
line and I'm sure you're aware that if memory serves me correctly,
that Lely Lakes PUD was approved for .48 units per acre and I'll
expect -- I'll expect you to adhere to that if there's changes made,
because that's why you got my vote on that fezone.
MR. RANKIN: It's gonna remain -- I can't -- I haven't got that
calculation, but it's gonna remain very low, such as that, that kind
of a relationship.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My only concern, it just -- this whole thing
seems very iffy. I don't have a great deal of comfort level here --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me either.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in this whole process.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, maybe you can take comfort with the
fact that we're just -- we're saying, stop here and come back in a
couple months and then we'll make a final decision.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In 90 days, if there's not a solid plan in
front of us, it's going to ag., it's gonna revert back, I mean that's
what I understand staff's rec -- or CCPC's recommendation is, give it
a 90 day extension for consideration and if it's not done in 90 days,
the decision before us is whether to take it back to ag. or not.
MR. REISCHL: If I can just say one thing?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: It's for a submittal to the Planning Services
Director not for --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But they have 90 days to get a firm
plan, and submit it or it will be set up to come back to us for a down
zoning to ag.?
MR. REISCHL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. Then that's --
MR. REISCHL: You're basically extending the sunset date another
90 days.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because of extenuating circumstances that
have been placed on the record, not just because we're good people.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Are there any further questions?
Are there any speakers?
MR. MCNEES: You have none.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: None? I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions or discussion?
I'll call the question. All those in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #12B4
ORDINANCE 98-5 REGARDING PETITION PUD-83-1(8)f MICHAEL R. FERN~NDEZf
AICP OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPOR~TED~ REPRESENTING COAST
COMMUNITIES CORPORATION REQUESTING AN ~MENDMENT TO THE BERKSHIRE LAKE
PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ~MENDING THE BERKSHIRE LAKES PUD REGULATIONS
HAVING THE EFFECT OF ADDING THE USE OF A SELF-STORaGE CENTER ON THE
COMMERCIAL TRACT LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DAVIS BOULEVARD ~ND
SANTA BARBAR~ BOULEVARD - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Moving on then to petition PUD-83-1(8). All those people
wishing to speak to this issue~ please rise.
(Speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll open the public hearing. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes~ my name is Ron Nino~ £or the recordf planning
services. The petition that's be£ore you asks your consideration £or
amending the Berkshire --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me~ Mr. Nino. Mr. Weigel~ can
you come here £or a minute?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
MR. NINO: -- asks your consideration to amend the provisions o£
the Berkshire Lakes PUD with respect to a commercial site on the
northwest corner o£ Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. The
uses that are currently allowed within that northwest quadrant are
essentially those that are C-~ in scope and the current land
development code~ with approximately £our or £ive o£ them that -- that
are only allowed in the C-4 district~ such uses as a new car sales
agencyf an upholstering shop~ auto part stores and hospitals are C-~
uses. So we have a zoning classi£ication that is essentially a
combination o£ C-~ and C-~ uses.
This petition asks you to amend the list o£ uses that are
permitted as they apply to that intersection~ to that quadrant and
asks you to add as an additional permitted use a personal service
storage £acility. Personal service storage £acilities~ £or your
in£ormation~ is a use that is currently allowed in the C-5 district
and the industrial district.
The petitioner makes a proposition that they can mitigate the
perceptions that people have about mini-warehouses and have structured
or cra£ted -- have agreed to us cra£ting a development order that
would -- would address the -- perceive the de£iciencies thatf one~
have developed over the year with mini-warehouses relative to their
architectural projection and has -- and we include in the ordinances
responses to those concerns~ in addition to a very enhanced
landscaping program.
Let me say~ with respect to the £uture land use element o£ the
growth management plan~ we do not have an inconsistency relationship
here. The site is vested by virtue o£ its DRI relationship £or
commercial development and the nearest we can come to the issue o£
consistency is the provision in the growth management -- in the £uture
land use elementf Policy ~-1~ which says that all rezoning must be
consistent with the growth management plan. Planned unit developments
approved prior to adoption o£ the plan and £ound to be consistent
through the zoning teevaluation program~ which is the case here~ will
be permitted to make changes~ provided the amount o£ commercial land
user permitted number o£ dwelling units~ and here's the word~ the
operative phrase, and the intensity of development allowed by the PUD,
including impacts to roads, water, sewer, drainage, solid waste and
the parks, are not increased. And the opinion of staff and we've
identified in the staff report, the mini-warehouse or personal service
development is not more intensive than the uses that are currently
authorized in that -- in that commercial quadrant. They demand
significantly less in terms of sewer and water and transportation
impacts than uses that are currently allowed.
We find that if approved, this petition would be consistent with
the growth management plan. In looking at this from a purely -- aside
from that issue, looking at it from a planning perspective, I -- our
position, as your professional staff, is I think clearly enunciated in
the staff report, and I'd like to read from the staff report because I
couldn't say it extemporaneously any better than I think is in the
staff report.
Aside from issues of architectural quality, it is staff's opinion
that an assessment of use intensity supports the proposition that
personal/mini-storage warehouses have a lesser intensity impact on the
land area they interface with. For example, a one hundred thousand
development in mini-warehouse space, or general office space, or a
shopping center would generate 261, 1403 and 7,067 average daily
traffic movements respectively. In other words, the mini-warehouse is
many-fold less than a shopping center.
Staff further opines that wastewater treatment requirements,
potable water supplies, and demand upon police and fire protection
services would show a similar relationship.
Therefore, if one can overcome the presumption of architectural
deficiency by specifically providing in any amendment development
order that mini-warehouses or personal storage facilities will
architecturally and through site planning improvement cause such a
development to project itself in an equally pleasing manner as one
would expect with a planned shopping center or cjuster of office
buildings, then the criterion of appropriateness, suitability and
compatibility is equally achieved as this relates to the housing areas
near the commercial tract.
We have in our packet, unusually, signed resolutions by affected
property owners. The key residential areas that are affected here, I
think you'll all agree, are the two pockets of residential development
immediately north of the body of water and the golf course and are in
Countryside. Those condominiums have signed affidavits -- I mean,
signed resolutions saying that if they have their druthers, this is
what they would like, rather than the permitted uses.
That presentation was made to the planning commission. The
planning commission unanimously recommended approval of this petition,
and we'd be happy to answer any questions, if we can.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a number of questions for staff
before we hear from the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Interestingly, your final point there,
Mr. Nino, because on the previous item we heard what Commissioner
Hancock referred to as the bait and switch tactic. Well, let me tell
you what the worst case scenario could be here, but we're gonna save
the day and put something else there, and I know for a fact, 'cause I
was at some of those meetings, that's exactly what this petitioner has
done, and I would say that that may be some of the reason we have
those letters.
You brought up the point about the storage plant would generate
less traffic than say a shopping center. Would a batch plant generate
less traffic than a shopping center?
MR. NINO: It would generate less traffic.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I think trying to use that
as the measure probably isn't appropriate. There's a lot more than
just the amount of traffic or the amount of runoff there that impacts
it.
Currently, the PUD, and I drive by this site daily, it's just in
the nature of where I live and where our office is, I go by here a
couple times a day. There is a large real estate sign as is allowed
by commercial properties, advertising the property for sale. It says
on it, C-1 property for sale, and clearly is advertised -- so clearly
the owner understands, this was intended for a fairly light commercial
use. It has -- that sign has been there for a number of years.
That's not something that just popped up.
Can you direct me -- I realize while that says C-1 and it is a
PUD, can you direct me in our packet to the PUD uses? I think they're
listed somewhere in there?
MR. NINO: Yes. Let me say, Commissioner, that I think the C-1
emanates from the fact that that is the directed use in the PUD --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just describing scenarios.
MR. NINO: And does not mean C-1 in terms of the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure.
MR. NINO: -- C-1 district in the land development code.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand that.
MR. NINO: The C-1 uses in the PUD include --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you just direct me to those pages,
and I'll walk you through it.
MR. NINO: Oh, page 19 in the PUD. I don't believe you have it
in your packet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's actually page 15 in our
packets.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, it's in the packet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It outlines the uses. Can you show me
-- now, you said the self-storage is normally a C-5 use; is that
right?
MR. NINO: Yes, correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you direct me to the C-5 uses on
these pages?
MR. NINO: There aren't any in there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are no C-5 uses in this --
MR. NINO: No, no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- right now?
MR. NINO: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you say this PUD and these
listings here as it stands, is as intense as having straight C-5
zoning?
MR. NINO: Pardon?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you say these pages as they list
all the permitted uses is as intense as straight C-5 zoning?
MR. NINO: Not as intense as straight C-5 zoning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. This PUD was originally
approved in 1983; is that correct?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it fair to say the area has changed
-- this particular area has changed a bit since 19837
MR. NINO: It certainly has, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fact, Santa Barbara, the road
didn't even exist in 1983, obviously, Countryside and Berkshire, as
part of this PUD, did not exist. Embassy Woods didn't exist -- MR. NINO: A lot of --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and so on, all the way back. Is it
possible that some of the uses that were approved in 1983 might not be
approved if this PUD was just started in 19987
MR. NINO: This -- when? 19987
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: '98, today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Today.
MR. NINO: If this PUD were coming before you in 1998, you
wouldn't be able to approve any commercial there of any kind.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Recognizing, though, that
they were indeed approved in 1983.
MR. NINO: And vested today, by virtue --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and -- but you've pointed out
that none of that is C-5. Would you say that -- scratch that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, he definitely would not say that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't like that one. No, I've
already covered that.
Other than the light industrial C-5 district in Golden Gate, can
you tell me anywhere in the county where storage units are not in or
adjacent to industrial zoned property? MR. NINO: No, I can't.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. My point is this; the traffic
and sewer impacts really aren't applicable, and you could pick any
outrageous example like a batch plant and show that you'd have less
traffic. I don't think that's an applicable sales tool.
There is no C-5 in here right now. Many of these uses wouldn't
be allowed at all if they were to come through right now. There is
virtually nowhere in the county that C-5 isn't or the self storage
units aren't in either industrial or directly adjacent to industrial
right now.
The only exception to that is in Golden Gate there is the largest
C-5 unit, which has now been altered in our '93 plan or whatever.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I thought that out on the East Trail, that
self storage center that's out near the Hitching Post, is that
industrial out there?
MR. NINO: I understand from Mr. Mulhere, he advised me this
morning, that would be the only one that we can think of.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I wish Mr. Mulhere had
advised me of that when I asked him the same question this morning.
Point being, I don't think this is compatible. I think as we
look not only now, I did the 15 year picture, not only to show the
changes now, but that is scheduled to be a four-way intersection.
Santa Barbara will continue and then go down toward Lely and reality
is, what goes in first, sets the tone for what a major intersection
like that will be, and I think, I respectfully disagree with you, when
you refer to Section 5.01. I don't think it's compatible, I don't
think it fits and I don't think it's -- it clearly is a more intense
use and I think if you go through the list of questions I just asked
you, it's fairly easy to demonstrate that it is a more intense use.
MR. NINO: Section 5.01 doesn't call for a compatibility
assessment, it calls for an assessment of intensity.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I just said, it clearly is a
more intense use. That's all for now.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know that I agree with you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't agree at all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Do you disagree that a C-5
use is more intense?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I'm not looking at that. I'm looking at
what this project is, is a less intense use than what you're
suggesting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm saying this project is a more
intense use than anything that is currently allowed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I don't think so at all. I mean, that's
-- just, you know, thinking about having used one of these facilities
and thinking of the number of people that you see at this kind of
facility at any given time, is minimal. I mean, I have never seen
where cars are lined up, I mean --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm not talking about traffic, and
that was my whole point of saying a batch plant. I don't see cars
lined up there either, but it's more intense and less appropriate for
a major intersection next to residential property, it's appropriate
for an industrial type use. So is this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- Mr. Nino? I just want to make
sure that I'm clear here on pages 15 and 16 and going into 17 of our
agenda packet, these uses are currently permitted; is that correct?
MR. NINO: Correct, correct. Let me try to clarify something.
All these uses are also permitted in a C-5 district. They're first
permitted in a lower district, but they're also always -- you know,
the C-5 allows everything from C-1 to C-5, inclusive. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. NINO: I think we need to understand that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But there's nothing here that is C-5
by itself.
MR. NINO: Uniquely C-5, that's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, a doctor's office is allowed
in C-5 --
MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but it's not limited to C-5.
MR. NINO: Correct, there is no use that is only permitted in the
C-5 district.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What about -- where do we first find new
car dealerships, for example -- MR. NINO: C-4.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I would think that would be a fairly
intense use.
MR. NINO: C-4.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I understand your point correctly,
you're saying to be blunt, you can put a dress on a pig, but it's
still a pig.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, the analogy I used is, you can a
dress up a 350 pound man in a tuxedo, and he's gonna look better than
he did, but he's still a 350 pound man. And you can put all kinds of
trees and fancy things here, but it's still a storage facility.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't realize till your comments when I
referred to the bait and switch on the previous one, that it would be
a carrying topic, but as -- if the residents of the adjacent community
were kind of scared by saying it could be X and it could be Y, I think
we have to look at the list of permitted use, say what reasonably,
based on the site orientation and whatnot, what reasonably can be done
there, and of all the listings, I come across two that would probably
not be desirable.
One is garden supply store with outside display in the side and
rear yards. This site could become that. There could be a market in
the area for that. Another one is, I see liquor stores, nobody wants
a liquor store, you know, across the way from them and so forth. The
rest of them all look fairly straightforward and compatible.
You know, when you take out thing like upholstery shops, that in
all likelihood, an upholstery shop is not going to locate here. A new
car dealer is not going to locate here. I mean, you have to kind of
throw out those that are not reasonable.
So, there's a couple in there, but not a lot to really be scared
about from a realistic standpoint. So if what you're talking about
occurred, I would be tremendously concerned and I think the residents
that are here should be concerned too, and I'll let them address that,
but I can see what Mr. Nino is saying about, you know, what are the
physical or external impacts of the project, and looking at that
solely from a compatible standpoint, that is one -- one test. The
other were the other elements you discussed, so it's somewhat
subjective, but I would say there are not a lot of realistic uses in
this district that are that noxious or that offensive.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, and at the presentation I saw
where some of those bait and switch things were used, it was you could
end up with a boxy strip center that has no trees behind it and you'll
be staring at the back end of a drug store and there'll be trucks
loading and unloading, and it was a general horror story described to
them and that's not an appropriate way to convince, in my opinion, to
convince a community that some other use should go there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions? We'll hear from the
petitioner then.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, commissioners. Michael
Fernandez representing the petitioner.
We've been dealing with the neighbor -- our neighbors and we have
found them to be a very astute group of individuals that are
resourceful, are diligent in researching the issues. What we have
done from the very beginning is work with them to come up with a
project that was complimentary to our client's goals and needs, as far
as creating a personal self storage facility and meeting their goals
of enhancement to their community, and I think the project speaks for
itself.
I think that the landscape designs that had been proposed, the
mix of vegetation, the size, the magnitude, the berms that had been
proposed and are written and committed to in the PUD document, are
well in excess of anything that the county has, and certainly,
especially adjacent to that lake area. What we have -- what you're
seeing here on the easel is a rendering that depicts the building
there.
Now, in our presentations to the residents, what we talked about
was that realistically what we have here is about a seven and a
quarter acre parcel. It's highest and best use, and Mike Cart here is
the realtor involved and would be happy to speak to this, is that
there's going to be a couple of outparcels that can be cut out of it
and that just makes plain economic sense, because that's where you can
get the most bang for your buck.
So what do you do with the rest of the parcel? And what appears
-- and what we said was, what would appear to make sense, is to do
what probably is an L strip center. Now, that would force, and this
would be almost a -- most type of developments on this site, would
then put their -- are putting their front to the roads and they're
putting the back toward the lake areas.
What we have done, is that we've created the entire setback
distance along the lake side to be landscaped. There are no service
areas, there are no doors. One thing that one of the commissioners
asked us in a meeting that we had with them was, you know, a
commitment to no doors or roll-up doors and we can make that
commitment, that none of the exterior walls facing the perimeter of
the project will have any openings, unless they're, you know,
emergency egress, but there's no access for storage purposes. That's
because all the access, and as you can see in the site plan that we
have over here on the wall, all the exterior areas are green areas,
those are substantial buffers with substantial plantings.
The setback from Santa Barbara Boulevard is approximately 200
feet -- 250 feet, from Davis Boulevard is approximately 150 feet.
It's a series of one and two-story buildings. The long -- the
building along the lake side is the one that's depicted in this
rendering is of a one-story -- is a one-story structure, combination
of carports and roof areas.
We have included reduction of these within our PUD documents that
speak to the quality of the architecture that will accompany the
development of this site. We've also included in the reductions in
your documents a detail of the berm that will go adjacent to the lake
area. That depicts the adjacent building height, as well as some
specifications for the berm and for the landscaped area alongside of
it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, on that point, is that
depiction at maturity or at time of installation, and if there's a --
if it's at time --
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: No, this depiction is at planting. This
is the planting size, the dash line is as at maturity. It shows the
tree would be much long -- larger. If you look at the palms, the
palms are a minimum of, I believe, 16 feet, would range from 16 to 22.
So, no, we're planting mature size trees. In fact, I think all the
shade trees that are required here are all a minimum of 14 feet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: And although between the outparcels and
the subject storage center, normally under your current guidelines,
all we'd have to do is plant trees one every 50 feet, I believe. What
we've done here even then, we have a backdrop that's gonna have the --
a hedge and this extended tree canopy and then this entire perimeter
buffer will be put in at the initial phase of the development. That
way as future phases come along, it will already be screened.
In addition to that, and one of the ideas that some of the
residents came up with, was an extension of this landscape buffer, not
just over the front of -- the frontage on Davis and Santa Barbara that
this project occupies, but also to the two outparcels. So the PUD now
commits to extending this landscape buffer, which includes flowering
plants and so forth along the entire perimeter of this corner, less
the bank, which is out of our control, but we've spoken to the bank
and it's something that, you know, they'll consider when they're
talking -- they're talking about refurbishing the bank when they
reactivate it, but that's something beyond our control, we can't
commit to, but the majority of this frontage would work that way.
This is a small parcel. As I said, it's only 7.2 acres. You
know, it's inappropriate for some items, like a car lot, you know,
doesn't really make a lot of sense here because there's just not
enough acreage. You can't put a shopping center here in the
traditional sense because it just won't fit. So you start looking for
those issues. This is a good fit. Also, this is a unique use. This
is not -- this wants to be out in this area.
I believe there was a PUD recently approved on the North Trail
that included as one of its uses mini-warehouse. This is a personal
self storage and we're trying to distinguish that in that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many self storage units, Michael?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: There is no number associated with it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many would be allowed?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: There is no number associated with it.
No maximum number.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a square footage? I mean, how do we
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many do you anticipate?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: I don't have any --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You haven't mentioned a number at any
hearings with Countryside or --
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: No, I haven't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No representatives of the property
have mentioned any number?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: I believe the -- I believe the -- the
owner is here and he may have a number as far as square footage.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not asking that question. I'm
asking the question of --
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: The number of units?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: That number --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you not aware of him stating a
number? You have no idea? You never heard a number? You don't have
any idea what it might be?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: That's correct, but I do know what
they've done in that first building is that they're gonna have a
certain number of units.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we swear him in?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I just want to be sure.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: As those numbers -- as those buildings
are built, what they're gonna do is they're gonna program each of
those individual buildings to change and to address those economic
realities. So there are no fixed number of units.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, how do you do a traffic
impact assessment then if you have no idea how many users the
project's going to have?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: We didn't do a traffic impact assessment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, how do we know we're below five
percent of level service C of the roadway, unless we do some type of
traffic assessment? That is a requirement, is it not, to be below
five percent of level service C, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: No, it wouldn't apply, inasmuch as the property's
vested.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh.
MR. NINO: And we're simply dealing with an addition of a use
that's, basically we know by virtue of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because it's not a new fezone.
MR. NINO: It's not a new fezone, it's an amendment.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: If you look -- the parking requirements
are not fresh in my mind, but they're -- I know the number of parking
spaces that we show on-site, on that site plan are in excess of what
would be required and certainly substantially less than you would see
in a typical development on that site.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that parking requirement based on
square footage?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Square footage.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But my concern is, and whether it
be parking or transportation is not as relevant as if you do a
thousand, you know, 40 square foot boxes, or you do a hundred larger
ones, that's an impact difference on transportation and parking. MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So there had to be some idea here before
you assigned parking of whether it would sufficient for the number of
units involved, and I'm just a little -- I'm a little surprised that's
not out there, that we're not dealing with some kind of number in our
heads to understand intensity.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: We have a consultant on board who's a
specialist in doing mini-warehouses, he's a -- one of the members of
the board of the National Association of Mini-warehouses and so forth,
and he's designing the project. He knows -- he's seen our parking
requirements, he says they're in excess of what's going to be needed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many parking spaces are there,
Michael?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: I don't recall off the top of my head.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you get that information before we
conclude the public hearing?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Would you like -- are you asking me to
count the parking spaces that you're looking for?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I suspect someone on your team
knows how much parking -- if you know it's in excess, you've got to
have some idea how many it is.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: I'm guessing right now, for some reason I
think it's around 56 spaces or something like that shown. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead, I'll count them.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yeah, I don't recall. I mean, generally
speaking, this type of facility is understood to be substantially less
intensive than those other uses that are allowed on this site.
The -- but we do believe the project speaks for itself. We're
talking about a high quality project. As we said, some of the
buildings are two-stories, they will be accessed with elevators.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Michael, may I interrupt you? I should
have disclosed previously that I had -- and will disclose now that I
have met with Mr. Fernandez this morning about this project, but will
base my decision on all the legal information that's available, but
the reason I was interrupting you is because I started this hearing
with very little concern about this project because of the general
understanding that this is a less intense use than C -- than the
currently permitted uses, but the either lack of knowledge or
evasiveness on the actions makes me uncomfortable, and I'm telling you
that I sense from the rest of the board that it's making everybody
uncomfortable. You must have some idea how big this is gonna be and
how many parking places it's gonna require.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Well, I mean, we have a graphic depiction
there of a site plan we've done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it to scale?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: It is to scale, and it is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you can tell us how big it's gonna be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's about 60 spaces, I counted them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because you told us this is a definite
plan, this is a --
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So please answer --
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: But, I mean, I didn't know off the top of
my head how many spaces there are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many square feet is the entire
building?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: The number of buildings that we have
here, off the top of my head, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, take a minute and do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't you find out, Michael,
because you knew the numbers pretty well when I saw you at
Countryside?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: I don't believe so, not at all. I didn't
state any kind of numbers whatsoever in that meeting about the number
of units or square footage.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In order to determine the number of
parking spaces required, you either have to know the square footage --
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Oh, I'm sure I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or you have to have traffic generation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So pause and get it for us, or something,
because it makes everybody feel like there's something so secret.
There's a man in the back of the room who seems to know. Is he the
property owner? Maybe he can --
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. Hold on just a moment,
please.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris has a good point.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Shouldn't our staff be able to answer these
questions about how it was determined -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that it was less than five percent or
the traffic generation numbers --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, that was not relevant.
MR. NINO: We also -- we already indicated, commissioner, that
that wasn't applicable in this case.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, why isn't it applicable, because it's
a new use that wasn't in the previously approved PUD?
MR. NINO: Because this is a vested PUD and they're --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the PUD was vested for specific uses
and not this use.
MR. NINO: Okay. And we know on the basis of the traffic
generation manual that a mini-warehouse projects --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the answer I'm trying to get out of
him.
MR. NINO: -- has less automobile movements associated with it
than does a shopping center or an office building and we quoted that
difference in our staff report. I believe we indicated that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So on the square footage comparing this
size of a shopping center to this size --
MR. NINO: For example --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of a mini-warehouse, this is gonna have
significantly less parking; is that what we're to understand?
MR. NINO: A hundred -- I'm sorry, the example that we asked our
staff to look at in terms of traffic generation is if a hundred
thousand square feet of mini-warehouse were constructed on this
property, that hundred thousand square feet would generate 261 average
daily traffic movements.
If it were a hundred thousand square feet of general office
space, the office space would generate 1403 average daily traffic
movements.
Now if it were a shopping center of a hundred thousand square
feet and this project -- this land is large enough to accommodate a
shopping center of a hundred thousand square feet, that would generate
7,067 average daily traffic movements.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the number is so different, it's so
clear --
MR. NINO: We don't need level of service.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE -- you didn't need to do exact -- because
the answer is so clear to you as a planner. MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but -- excuse me, I'm not through
with my questioning.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How many square feet of storage facility
is this project approved for?
MR. NINO: This project, if approved, if the PUD is amended, they
will be able to construct as much square footage on the property as
they can fit adhering to the principles of their conceptual site plan.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there no one in the world that can
answer that question in more specific terms?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: The owner's telling me that it's 128
thousand square feet of which 97 thousand are usable for storage.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we deal in G.F.A., so for purposes of
a comparison we use 128 thousand, because we deal G.F.A. on
everything.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all -- ten minutes ago, that's what
I was looking for.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: And I'm told the projected number of
units, understand they're gonna build the first building then the
internal configuration of the future buildings will be determined
based on the demand on that first building, but the projection that
I've been given is about 971 units --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you'll let me try --
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: -- of varying sizes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you'll let me try to follow a traffic
question here, exclusive of the outparcels shown on the site plan, how
much acreage does just the self storage facility consume on-site?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Five point two acres.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, five point two acres. So,
reasonably, the comparison we have here is 128 thousand square feet of
self storage versus really 52 thousand square feet of retail, since
the rule of thumb is 10,000 square feet per acre. Does that make
sense to you, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're talking about -- if it's
office we're talking about 300 versus 700 on this piece alone.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cars?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: But we still --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Using those rules of thumb, just general
-- okay, thank you.
MR. NINO: Again, using a rule of thumb, that hundred thousand
that Mr. Fernandez cites is about the maximum. We would -- normally,
it's very difficult to exceed 30 percent of the area of the lot in
terms of coverage and that's about 100 thousand square feet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That wasn't so hard, was it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Well, if I may finish?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: A couple more items about the type of
facility it is. This is a -- not your typical facility and doesn't
deserve, doesn't want to be in those industrial areas. It's to serve
primarily a residential clientele.
Rooftops; including -- it will have valet service that one would
be able to come and have your boxes brought to the front desk and from
there if you wish, you could even have them delivered to your home.
So some of the buildings are going to be two-story, which again
tells you that, you know, it's not one of these mini-warehouse storage
that you usually see in the industrial areas, because obviously you're
limited by the elevator going up and down and the ability to move
boxes and so forth, and we believe what we have depicted here, a
building of one or two stories, with significant buffers, significant
setbacks, and enhancements to projected outparcels, is a much greater
enhancement to the community and certainly a much better fit to the
residential community next door, than the alternatives that most
likely would have, you know, service areas to the rear of the
properties while they face the front. If you have any questions, I'll
be happy to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I think I got my questions answered,
thank you.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: We do have copies of those letters that
were provided to us, and I'll pass those through.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Gives those to Mr. HcNees.
Commissioner Norris, comment? Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I just appreciate Mr. Fernandez's
comments there at the end, that is like the 30-second version of the
15-minute explanation that he gave the homeowners about how the
alternatives would be with service areas facing the back and all --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did the numbers for the 5.2 acres of
self storage, it's plus or minus 334 trips, office is 700, retail is
3,500, but all those go out on Davis. They don't -- you know, where
the trips go don't really affect the homeowners across the way, but
those are the numbers I came up with on those five acres and you still
have outparcel development, so I just thought I'd pass that on to you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Speakers?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this particular
amendment?
MR. HCNEES: You have four.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please.
MR. HCNEES: Your first speaker would be Rose Zalecki, who would
be followed by Richard Ovington.
MS. ZALECKI: Thank you. I'm Rose Zalecki, and I am here for
Falling Waters residents. We were a little concerned about this
building because we're right across the street from it. At first we
thought it was a bad thing to put in, however, after hearing some of
these other things that would -- or structures that can go in there,
we figured this was the best way to go.
However, I have two concerns. One is, can they assure us that
they will maintain the buildings and landscaping as the structure
shows in the plan? I don't know, I've asked and they said, yes, they
could, but what happens if they don't? I don't know. Another thing
is what will go in on the outparcels? We would like to know what is
zoned for that area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The two answers to that, the first is, if
they don't do what is -- assuming they were approved, if they don't do
what's in that plan, they would be in zoning violation. They'd be
brought back before the board of zoning appeals and be required to
correct whatever is on site, so that would come back to this board for
enforcement.
The second answer is everything else that is currently in the PUD
that could go there now, will be allowed to go in the outparcels.
you could end up in those two outparcels with a fast food restaurant
or, you know, that's probably a high intensity one, but everything
that could occur now will be allowed to occur in those outparcels, so
whatever occurs will be on top of this plan.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All the items that you were scared
might be in the other parcel, could now be in the outparcels.
MS. ZALECKI: Okay. Well, after talking this morning with some
of the people at Countryside, they were under the understanding, to my
knowledge, that these things would not be put in there once this
structure was put up.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually '- MS. ZALECKI: Are they using scare tactics to turn us into
approving this?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't speak for them and I don't pretend
to, but when you look at an outparcel that is -- I assume these are
about one acre, what you see in those most of the times are just stand
alone, whether it be a marble and tile shop or a fast food restaurant
or a bank branch, those are the kinds of things. So if you picture
those things, that's what outparcels of this size tend to lend
themselves to, so you have to make a decision for yourself based on
these uses whether that's acceptable or not.
MS. ZALECKI: Okay. So if we accept this, we could still have
two other buildings going in there --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on their plan.
MS. ZALECKI: But if they don't, then we could have a shopping
mall or something, right?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or three of those.
MS. ZALECKI: So really with the way this looks to me, this is a
beautiful plan, if this is the way it's gonna look, but I would think
this is better than a shopping center.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The alternative that no one has
mentioned is when you go to a place like Vineyards and the Crossroads
Market Place out in front of that, what could they have put in there?
Well, they could have put in all kinds of bad things, the way you
could do here, but considering it was in a nice neighborhood and they
were trying to appeal to a particular resident and so on, then they
dressed that up to an appropriate degree.
Even if you go behind there, it was the exact same concern as
Countryside has. At Vineyards, when they said, we don't want to look
at bread trucks unloading, and then there were trees put in and all
kinds of things happening.
I think if you ended up with a shopping center of some sort here,
despite Mr. Fernandez' comments, you're not gonna end up with the
worst case scenario. It's just -- it's not the way the world works
right now.
MS. ZALECKI: Well, the only thing I -- to my gripe was why
didn't they come to us also, being that we're right across the street?
Nobody ever said what was going in and all we heard was the scare
tactics. If we don't approve this, then we're gonna get all kinds of
things in there. To me, it looks pretty nice if this is what they're
gonna do. Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Ovington, followed by Michael McNulty.
MR. OVINGTON: For the record, my name is Richard Ovington. I'm
a resident of Collier County, presently serving as president of one of
the five building associations of the condominiums located on Province
Way within the Countryside Golf and Country Club. My condo building
is right here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, sir, there's a microphone right --
MR. OVINGTON: We are the closest building to this development,
and I guess I'm also serving in the capacity of a dupee today, but my
role was to present this letter that our directors have signed, 11
directors representing 150 units who are primarily affected by this
piece of property, and we've heard mention of many things. You took
some of my thunder away here, but we've heard about the Vineyards and
we've seen the Publix development on Radio and they're wonderful, but
about a year ago, we experienced what we'd like to call the Winn-Dixie
development and the residents of Country Glenn, which are our northern
neighbors, have experienced diminished property values, intrusions
into their lifestyle, their swimming pool is probably about 70 feet
away from parked cars, delivery trucks, again, these are scare
tactics, but, garbage trucks, lights that are on all night long, 24
hour commercial enterprises.
So when someone comes to us and says we won't give you vehicular
traffic where you can see it, we won't give you lights that you can
see all night, we're limiting our operation from seven to eight
o'clock, we'll give you architectural buildings that are within the
theme of your buildings, we'll give you landscaping far in excess of
what the zoning allows or requires, the palm trees, the hedges, and we
asked at one of our meetings, we asked for a berm, they immediately
put it into their artist's rendering. They've been cooperative. I've
met with them -- we at Countryside have met with them at least three
times or their representatives, so if we're being duped, we're --
they're doing a good job. I grew up in the city of Chicago and we
could spot a con man as soon as he stepped off the streetcar.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but then you elected them so -- I'm
just teasing.
MR. OVINGTON: I voted early and I voted often. So, we know what
we want. That's our evaluative criteria. Commissioner Mac'Kie had a
tough time with that word, I had to think about it too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a tough word.
MR. OVINGTON: But we would like to see this development there.
Over against -- it's, again, scare tactics, a mall, with traffic, a
car dealership. We feel this is -- is a logical alternative.
If you sat on my lanai, I think you'd rather look at this, than
the back of Winn-Dixie, or the rooftop air conditioning unit that is
the size of a small house.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's true.
MR. OVINGTON: If you look at these plans, their air conditioning
unit will be shielded from our view. I guess it's very easy to dupe
us when you offer us so much. I would appreciate it if the
commissioners would grant the petitioners their request.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for the gentleman, if I may. You
mentioned air conditioning and it caused me to remember that there are
some lots in Berkshire Lakes that backed up to the Publix there that
they're having a tough time selling because of the noise of the air
conditioning unit. Have they addressed noise with you, not just the
placement and visual screen of A.C. units, but sometimes in a larger
building, those A.C. units run all night and can be rather noisy? Has
that been addressed?
MR. OVINGTON: They didn't address it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll ask the petitioner because
that just clicked when I thought of it.
MR. OVINGTON: But they do in the plans presented to the planning
commission, they called for shields, all the air conditioning roof
units will be shielded from view from the Countryside residents.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, that's visual. My thought is with
the --
MR. OVINGTON: No, they did not address the noise.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. With the way noise travels I'll ask
the petitioners about that, because that would be important I think to
you. It just occurred to me, so thank you.
MR. OVINGTON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. OVINGTON: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: Michael HcNulty, and your last speaker is Dom Festa.
MR. HCNULTY: Madam Chairwoman, commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen, good afternoon. For the record, my name is Michael J.
HcNulty. I'm a homeowner living at 220 Countryside Drive, where I
reside year-round.
The Countryside community, in which I live, consists of 34
incorporated homeowners' associations, each with its own president and
board of directors. These 34 presidents, which literally represent
all 1,133 residential unit owners, sit as an advisory panel to the
master association. I serve as chairman of the president's council,
and it's in this capacity as chair of the Countryside president's
council that I address you today.
The well organized, self-governing, long established Countryside
community lies contiguous, as has been noted, to the property which is
the subject of the petition before you today.
On October 9, 1997, the petitioner and his colleagues presented
their plans for the vacant site at Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard
to the council at its regular monthly meeting. We invited the
developer to do so, because Countryside owners have been looking at
this vacant lot for ten years and growing more concerned each year
over its ultimate use.
At subsequent council meetings on November 13th and December 11,
1997, there was extensive discussion by the council on the proposed
use of the property. At those meetings, most council members endorsed
the concept, particularly because they viewed the suggested
landscaping in the project renderings and the exterior building design
as positive additions to the neighborhood.
Finally, on January 9, 1998, the council unanimously adopted a
resolution in support of the petition and authorized me to convey that
sentiment to you today.
Consequently, it is our hope that you will give this matter your
favorable consideration. Thank you for this opportunity to appear and
for your kind attention.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: Your last speaker is Dom Festa.
MR. FESTA: Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson, and other
honorable commissioners. For the record, I am Dom Festa, the director
on the master board of directors at Countryside. I'm wearing three
hats today and I wondered, do I have 15 minutes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
MR. FESTA: I thought I'd try.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good try, Dom.
MR. FESTA: Last month we had a meeting of the master board and
we decided unanimously to accept the petition for an amendment to the
PUD and it was not an easy decision. I was one of the biggest in
opposition to it. I'll say that publicly and I'm the type of person,
if I'm against something, and some of my buddies are in favor of it,
other people are in favor of it, I'll go back and try to rethink it
and I'll keep studying the topic.
I studied all the new coded you have, I think it was put in place
in 19 -- October of '96. I read it over about four or five times
pertaining to architectural guidelines and standards. I read your
landscaping buffering, and so forth, code. I went through the whole
PUD, the permitted uses, I think there are a hundred permitted uses
there, with housing and fast food, and if you go through the whole
list, it's amazing. Each one, I think there's 26 there, some need
approval, but they're all four or five in each number, and there were
a lot there I looked at.
I looked at the new code and I realized that it would not be
another Winn-Dixie, but it wasn't there yet and I appreciate the work
done on that code, and trying to make great changes is really a great
step forward, the whole county should be aware of that.
Then I looked at our responsibility. We had a responsibility to
the area that Rich Ovington spoke about, but that's kind of selfish in
a way, I said. We had a responsibility to Countryside and we had a
bigger responsibility to East Naples and Collier County and the image.
You travel up and down that corridor there, it's not a nice sight.
When I bring my friends and they come over to Countryside, we
head downtown, it's not the prettiest sight going down Davis, and I
thought those four corners had to be developed in the best manner and
Tim talked about that 350 pound person with a tuxedo on, but this
person will not look like a 350 pound person. They're gonna make all
kinds of changes above and beyond what's required by the county, even
with the improvement. He's not going to walk like a 350 pound person.
Their hours are restricted, there's no outside storage, there's
no business allowed inside and they're making all kinds of changes,
and maybe -- just maybe, this is an opportunity for us to set the
precedent.
First of all, there is a need here in Collier County, as I
understand, for storage. When I go shopping, I can go to all kinds of
stores, Target, or go to Paddle on Fifth, but when I go to personal
storage, where can I go? There is no upscale personal storage in
Naples, and I think it's about time we had one, and I think it's gonna
set a precedent for architectural standards and landscaping that's
gonna blow you out of your seats when you go by there, you'll be
taking pictures.
I'm pretty sure if this thing holds up, and I don't see why it
won't, it's gonna set a good precedent for the rest of that outparcel
and the three corners and probably the rest of Collier County, that we
can meet these standards.
The opportunity is there to help people in the area that have
looked out at a lot for ten years and what can happen there may not be
much better if this is not approved. An opportunity to meet the need
for personal storage, the opportunity to set a good precedent in what
you can do in landscaping and architectural design.
So I plead for your support and I think we're all going to be a
win/win. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have
any further comments for staff or petitioner? Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a couple requests for the
petitioner. Mr. Fernandez, a couple of points that came up and
something that occurred to me.
The first thing is the rendering that's before us, we have the
typical in our package of the landscape, is the rendering before us at
time of C.O.? In other words, is that the planting maturation of the
vegetation -- maturity, excuse me?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Actually, that doesn't depict the full
size at planting. That does not even have the berm in it. What we do
have is a scaled graphic of the berm and section that does show that
accurately.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So when you get C.O. for the first phase
of this project and I'm living across the lake, I'm going to see that
or something more attractive and more okay than that in place? MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. With that commitment on the record,
if that doesn't happen you're in violation of your zoning. Second
question is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we get a verbal agreement to that
instead of a nod?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second question is on entry. It
didn't occur to me when I met with you and discussed this, and I have
to make the same disclosure as Commissioner Norris did earlier, I have
met with the petitioner and received correspondence from residents --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It was Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Always getting those two confused.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You look so much alike, both wearing
glasses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the hair.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There we have an entry for the existing
bank that is actually going to be physically on the outparcel next to
it; is that correct, as you look at your site plan up here on the
wall?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, which outparcel are you
referring to?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That bank on the corner that actually is
accessed --
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Through the outparcel, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my concern, there's the potential
there for maybe two, maybe three accesses in a short period on Davis
Boulevard. Is there a willingness to consolidate access points, so
that either the outparcel accessed from the entryway to the self
storage facility or they're all three accessed from the existing bank?
In other words, I don't want a situation worse than what we see right
there. I don't want three accesses.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yeah, I don't believe -- the PUD doesn't
allow any more accesses to that entire quadrant than what you're
seeing right now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The proximity of the entrance to the bank,
which then will serve the outparcel, is the one that gives me the
greatest concern. Have you approached the bank at all about
centralizing an access to all three parcels and sharing that access?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: No, we have not. I don't know if you're
familiar with that site specifically, but there is a county drainage
system that runs through there and there's already the access bridge
that goes across at the point that it's located right now and also to
the bank's existing --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're looking at a couple hundred
thousand to bridge that thing, typically?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Probably.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But the bridge is there.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yeah, they're all existing facilities.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is that if we can narrow it down
to one access instead of two, that would be good, but --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a point here. The access
that's shown on this particular parcel, the subject parcel, has a
median cut eastbound so you can left-turn in there. The one at the
bank does not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What I'd like to see then, if this
moves forward today, is an interconnection between the proposed access
of the median cut and the outparcel. That would certainly I think
clear up some traffic issues.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the bank.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the bank, well, yeah, actually.
They can't force the bank to interconnect, but since the access
is the outparcel, you could very well commit to connecting the three
parcels to that access. That makes a lot of sense transportation-wise
to me, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The third thing is what was brought
up regarding air conditioning. I appreciate the visual screening, but
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: It's a good point, over the water, that
sound carries.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I'd like to go one step further and
ask if you would commit to, not just visual screening, but
installating and buffering it from noise traveling across the water to
the greatest extent practical, I know you can't can it entirely, but
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yeah, there's two significant ways that
might be handled, one is that the units may be able to be relocated to
the interior of the building. Not to the inside of the buildings, but
inside the development, so they're not exterior to the buildings
toward the perimeter of the project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: If that isn't feasible, then we can put
baffles, which essentially directs noise away from and it's been used
successfully on the condo high-rises along the waterfront.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the last thing is committing to
a maximum of 130,000 square feet of personal or self storage space on
the 5.2 acre parcel.
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One hundred thirty thousand -- well, 128,
on the record. I don't want to get it back because of 500 square
feet, but that just limits it to what was stated on the record more or
less. So I have commitments on all of those points from you?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yes, and one additional one that I made
earlier, and that was in regard to no openings along the perimeters of
the buildings adjacent to the property line for storage purposes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the exception of emergency access as
required by fire code?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What architectural safeguards do we have?
Do you have renderings that you want to submit as record and commit to
today?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. They've actually been made
part of the PUD document already, they're referenced and the
reductions are part of the document itself and they have been provided
to staff, as well as the landscape berm and also the sign depiction
that the community requested.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you including the pelicans?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: The --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the pelicans aren't always gonna be
there?
MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yeah, those we cannot commit to.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, any further
questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I have some comments after you
close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My only comments are that if this project
goes forward, I think the petitioner is certainly under the gun to
produce here. There's a lot of people that are putting a lot of trust
in the fact that you're going to do as you have committed to do.
Secondly, being a dweller of a person that -- a dweller of a
residence that certainly doesn't contain a basement, as very few of
them do in Southwest Florida, this type of facility if you live in a
condominium or a coach home, or even a regular home for that matter,
you never have enough storage and I think this could certainly be
beneficial to the community out in that area, but at the same time
that we're providing this service and benefit to you, we certainly
want it to be up to the standards that we all are desiring it to be.
So having said that, I will now ask -- Mr. Constantine's got one
further comment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, a couple thoughts. One, there
are substantial available locations in C-5 in industrial areas already
existing apart from this and it's only about three miles down the road
on Radio Road, it's not an across town thing.
I appreciate Dom's comments, but I think there's seven owners of
storage units in Arnold Industrial Park alone that might disagree with
your comment that there's nothing out there for high end or better
product. By some of the residents' testimony, they're acknowledging
scare tactics were used. The worst case scenario was described,
that's just a terrible way to try to get endorsements and disgraceful
and shouldn't be done.
When I saw Mr. Fernandez -- Mr. Fernandez give his answers at the
homeowners' groups -- and I need to disclose that I've talked to both
homeowners and the petitioner on this. He was very sure of the
answers, knew every detail along the way, and I find it just so
unusual today that he was vague and evasive and I'm wondering what
exactly the engineer does if he doesn't have any idea what the size of
the building is, or what the square footage is going to be or how many
units there were gonna be, wasn't really sure how many parking spaces
there were. I have no idea what you did on that then, Michael, and
I'm just amazed that you didn't know any of that information because
it was all committed to memory very well when you met with the
homeowners.
Specific to this, I think there are a number of points. I talked
about substantial available elsewhere, which is criteria, but also the
current PUD has no C-5 uses and C-5 uses are by definition heavier
than C-4 or C-3 or anything less, and so we are creating a heavier or
a more intense use if we approve this, and frankly, there's currently
no precedent in Collier County fore siting a self-storage facility
next to residential development or at a major four-way intersection,
which is what this will be. It's a major three-way intersection right
now, but I think we're making a mistake to approve it and I would ask
you not to do so.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Have you made a disclosure?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I have had contact with both sides on
this, but I'm going to make my decision based on the information here
in this hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've had contact with the petitioner and just
the information that we have received here, plus hearing information
today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is the public hearing closed?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: The public hearing is now closed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, you've made
reference several times to your concern about the four-way
intersection and I'm having trouble following that because we keep
hearing that this is going to be the lowest traffic generator of
anything that could be on that property.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, I go back to --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So tell me what -- how do you reconcile the
two?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, I'm not talking strictly about
traffic. I'm talking about at a four-way major thoroughfare it's the
impression you create, the visual you create, and that was why I
brought up the example of the batch plant, that would be a low
generator of traffic and yet it's clearly not an appropriate use to
have next door to residential or to have at a major four-way
intersection. That's not the impression that you want to make in that
area.
I'm suggesting that the self storage facility is like that. It
may generate less traffic, but as a C-5 use, it is a heavier use, it's
a more intense use, and it is not what you are trying to create for
either residential areas or for a four-way intersection, and as I
said, there are substantial available locations, located in C-5 and
industrial already for that. It's not a necessity.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I still have trouble following that,
because even though it still may be a C-5 designated use, it is not
very intense at all. I mean, intensity, unless I misunderstand the
definition of intensity, means how much usage it's getting out of how
much impact it's generating. If those buildings are just simply
sitting there with nice architecture and there's -- what was the
figure? Two hundred something trips a day. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's 334.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Three thirty-four, whatever. What
intensity is it that's giving you concern? I need some help with
this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, and maybe the staff can help me
with this then, when I used the batch plan example, why do we classify
that separately? Why don't we -- if that generates less traffic, why
don't we just keep it in a C-i?
MR. NINO: Well, there's still the issue of compatibility and
clearly I -- my personal observation is that it would be hard-pressed
to compare a batch plant or a concrete making plant or a glue factory
or the traditional ugly industrial uses, a steel plant --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean a horse recycling plant?
MR. NINO: A horse recycling plant with a warehouse.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can dress up the batch plant with
lots of trees and so on, and my point is --
MR. NINO: There's still the operational character --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is just that your operational
characteristics if they are compatible, and as I said, you can dress
this up, but I don't see it as a compatible use for a residential area
and for a major four-way intersection on what really is the busiest or
the second busiest entryway into our community.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, you've always
had a real good feel and fingers on the pulse of what's going on in
this part of the county and I'm compelled to agree with you. As I
said earlier, you can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig. The
problem I have is that all the contact I've had with citizens that are
either affected or even not affected by this has been of a positive
nature regarding the application, so --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which by the way is quite unusual.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Now, we discussed some of the
things that may have led to that and aired all of those earlier today
and then those people had an opportunity to speak. It's very
difficult and, Mr. Fernandez, I feel the need to say this; you start
to get a little hinky up here when you have to pull teeth to get the
size of a project out, and I felt like that's what we had to do today,
and it makes you question whether or not all the commitments are
really there and that is a concern.
However, by virtue of this hearing, the commitments are on the
record, they have been made. With the individuals in the community
that have supported this, it's one of the situations that it's very
difficult to say no, and with the commitments that have been made on
the record, particularly the staff recommendations, in addition to
four or five points that I made, and the community input, I'm
compelled to move approval of the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is
there any further discussion on this item?
Okay. I'll call for the question; all those in favor?
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, zero.
MR. NINO: May I seek clarification?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go on, I've got a question
for Mr. Weigel. Is it considered perjury if someone is sworn here and
then does not tell the truth? MR. WEIGEL: It may be.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Nine.
MR. NINO: I would appreciate your help on clarifying the access
issue. The PUD speaks to right in/right out only in two locations and
a full opening and requires consistency with the access management
plan. I'm concerned that these people -- this petitioner doesn't own
the property over which they've indicated they're going to create a
joint driveway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Meaning the outparcel?
MR. NINO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding is it's -- with the
exception of the bank property, it's the whole corner, including the
two outparcels. They don't have the ability to force the bank to do
that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why can't you come up with having them work
with those people, be it the bank people or --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize. I made the assumption that
since Mr. Fernandez committed to connecting those, that he was on
behalf of the petitioner saying that they could very well do that. My
concern was that the outparcel that is not yet developed should be
connected to the entrance for the self storage for the purpose of
giving them an access availability.
Now, as far as we can go as requiring an interconnect from the
storage to the adjacent outparcel, then that's what we need to do, but
that was my intent. Commissioner Norris, you and I had that
discussion ten minutes ago that the idea was to connect them all so
that they could all gain access here and get out.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you want to modify your motion, I'll be
glad to make a motion to reopen the public hearing.
MR. NINO: Let me say, that I think we can accommodate --
accomplish that by virtue of the way the PUD and the master plan are
currently constructed.
I suggest to you that we have the ability administratively
through the site plan review process to require all the land that is
not included in the subject to use either a right in and a right out
for all the outparcels, including the bank, because there's only two
limited --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. NINO: -- there's only two cuts --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand.
MR. NINO: -- that suggests to me --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Semebedy's got to show it to me on a
picture. I don't understand what can and cannot happen.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nine, that entranceway that's shown
there on the subject property has a left-turn lane on Davis? MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Eastbound?
MR. NINO: Those two driveways are full driveways. The remaining
properties are limited to two additional points; one on Davis, one on
Santa Barbara, and this says right turn access only with respect to
those access points. That means if there are four parcels -- three
parcels there, then the three parcels; two on Davis have to get
together and two on Santa Barbara have to get together by virtue of
what's currently in the PUD and we can accomplish that through the
site plan process.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me be specific -- specific about what
I was asking for. What I was asking for was that the two accesses
shown on this plan and the master site plan exhibit be the only
accesses allowed on Davis Boulevard and that outparcel be required to
interconnect to one or both, preferably both of those, so the person
could go from the bank through that outparcel to the self storage.
That's what I was hoping to accomplish.
MR. NINO: I understand your decision.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think we've gotten --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we've got that, but not more than
that; am I clear?
MR. NINO: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Because that I understood, but
beyond that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all I was trying to do. Santa
Barbara doesn't concern me because the access is far enough north that
it's not gonna be a congestion issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. NINO: I understand.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 98-16 REGARDING PETITION CCSL-97-4, GARY FRANCO FROM THE
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT REPRESENTING THE COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION
SEBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF
A CONCESSION STAND ON THE BEACH AT VANDERBILT BEACH COUNTY PARK -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does that clarify -- okay.
All right. Let's move on then to Petition CCSL-97-4 regarding
the coastal construction setback line. All those wishing to speak to
this issue, please rise and we'll swear you in.
(Speakers were sworn.)
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, development
services. I'm here today with Gary Franco from parks and recreation
to request a variance coastal construction setback line. The variance
is to construct an eight by eight foot concession stand on the beach
at Vanderbilt Beach County Park and to have a storage area for
equipment on the beach area, approximately twelve feet by twelve feet.
The petition is consistent with the land development code and the
growth management plan and staff's recommending approval. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Comments?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Lenberger, this is at the end of the
access of Vanderbilt Beach Road; is that correct, where that
cul-de-sac is?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is there any anticipation or plan
to include rest room facilities at that location?
MR. LENBERGER: None at this time. The structure would have to
be considered mobile. I spoke to the building department about this.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: Apparently, the new codes adopted would require
rest room facilities if it's a structure, a permanent structure, so it
has to be mobile and it may actually require that wheels be placed
underneath it, in order to be considered as such.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So, in essence, if people were
looking for rest rooms in this area, we would have to go through a
tremendously extensive permitting process to supply them, because they
would be permanent structures? Is that our biggest -- maybe that's a
question for Mr. Olliff, that --
MR. LENBERGER: Well, there is an existing rest room facility at
the beach. It's immediately adjacent to the cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah. Okay, I'm sorry. Never mind
then, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Questions? Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I'm just ready to approve this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Oh,
I'm sorry, do we have any speakers?
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: What item is this?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Item 12(C)(1) CCSL --
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval then.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call for the question. All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries, five, zero.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 98-6 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 81-42, AS AMENDED,
BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 47 THERETO TO INCREASE THE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE
TAX APPLICABLE TO LAWN MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS, LANDSCAPING RESTRICTED
CONTRACTORS, AND LANDSCAPING UNLIMITED CONTRACTORS - ADOPTED
Moving on then to an ordinance amending Collier County
Ordinance Number 81-42.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've kind of talked through and around
this and at it a bunch of times. This is the one where they are
paying -- the growers are paying for a portion of a horticulture agent
by increasing license fees; is that correct? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My position hasn't changed, unless there's
new information. I'm still supportive of it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they want to tax themselves, that's
great.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anything to add, Mr. Olliff?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Any speakers?
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Close the public hearing. We have a
motion and a second.
All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well done, Tom.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was you, Denise, good job. Glad
you've been here all day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was a great presentation.
THE COURT REPORTER: Who seconded that, please?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was the second, down here.
Item #13B1
RESOLUTION 98-17 REGARDING PETITION CU-95-16, TERRANCE KEPPLE
REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE "1" AND "3" IN THE "E"
ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A HOUSE OF WORSHIP AND CHILD CARE
CENTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
- ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving on to other advertised
public hearings.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second -- third.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cappie (phonetic), the one day you
don't show up, it won't get approved, you know that. Okay.
Item #15A
MEMO FROM FINANCE DIRECTOR MITCHELL RE PAYMENT OF INVOICES FOR COURT
ADMINISTRATION
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Weigel, do you have any
communication?
MR. WEIGEL: Happy to be here, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's good to communicate that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One step above happy to be alive. Dave,
are things not going well or --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: I have no comments.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Having said all this, Ms. Filson, do you have
any comments for us?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, wait, how about us?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, you have a comment?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you usually ask, anyway.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, I'll ask.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I had one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: She probably wouldn't have stopped you if
you didn't ask. Excuse me, your desk is ringing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, my purse.
I just saw this memo, it was in today's -- or in my mail today --
January 7th, from Jim Mitchell about the invoices for the courts and I
just wondered what the process -- is this going to be on next week's
agenda? I don't want to hold up getting these people paid, Mr.
Fernandez.
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, sir.
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: I have sent a response to that memo, I
didn't know it was going to come up, otherwise I would have had it
handy.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry, you can tell me about it later if
you want to, it just occurred to me.
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: I have a copy of a response, if you'd like
to see that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cool, thanks.
So we don't intend to schedule this for discussion, place it on
the agenda?
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the memo from Mr. Mitchell
includes the sentence, payments should be made from the transfer to
the Twentieth Judicial Circuit line item as a budget is in place.
That was essentially the issue all along. The contention by the clerk
was that there was not a budget in place. This memo acknowledges that
there is in fact a budget in place. My response refers to that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you read it, I think it's the second
paragraph.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I see that. Payment should be made
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The second paragraph, I believe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a budget is in place.
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: Right. So I regarded that as a resolution
to this matter and responded in my memo saying if that's the case,
please pay, it's not appropriate to refer these invoices to the county
administrator's office, because it is not within our authority to
write the checks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last time I checked, we had a clerk of
courts. Instead of writing checks ourselves, the clerk does that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Things haven't changed, have they? The
state statutes haven't been amended?
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if arrangements could be made to have
these invoices approved for payment by the Board of County
Commissioners, I assumed this was a request to get it on the agenda,
so that we'd do that batch approval we've been doing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But would that not come -- if it was a
request, would it come from the clerk? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Shouldn't it come from the clerk?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It did, it came from the clerk's director
of finance.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with the county administrator.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't -- I just --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had no idea I was opening a can of worms
this time. I've just a lot -- I've had a couple people calling me,
asking me when they might expect to get paid.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So based on correspondence from the clerk,
who has stated that a budget is in place, then pay it based on that
budget and we're done with this issue. There should be no more hold
up on anything in conforming with the budget that's in place.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What do you bet we'll hear something else
about this, instead of that being a final resolution?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we have to add this on, then that
request should be made from the clerk in order to pay these
individuals before next Tuesday's meeting then. Is that an
appropriate direction, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: Well, the agenda's already passed for that
meeting. We'd have to add it on as an add-on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Sounds like we're going in the
right direction.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The agenda's passed for which meeting?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next week.
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: Next Tuesday's meeting. We already have a
draft agenda for that meeting.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We do? Isn't that a little early?
MR. WEIGEL: It goes to the publisher tomorrow.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can always add on if we need to, but at
this point, unless the county administrator hears differently from the
clerk, there's a budget in place and he can pay the bills according to
his own correspondence.
MR. ROBERT FERNANDEZ: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course, this correspondence also says,
would you please put this -- you know, ask the board to approve it, so
there's a little contradiction there, we'll see. I bet if we stay
tuned, we'll hear, I'm sure, further about it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No further comments.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No further comments?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing at this end.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted with changes:
Item #16B1
WORK ORDER AMENDMENT WMBP FT-96-14-A UNDER AGREEMENT 95-2422 FOR
ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION AND DOCKS AT
SUGDEN PARK - TO WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$15,470.00
Item #1682
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
Item #1683
ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16C1
WORK ORDER #SC31 TO CONSTRUCT A PARTIAL REGULATION BASEBALL FIELD AT
IHMOKALEE COHMUNITY PARK - AWARDED TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN
THE A_MOUNT OF $111,411.08
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 98-6 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO EXECUTE
LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENTS FOR THE CURRENT CHAIRHAN'S TENURE
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 98-7, 98-8 AND 98-9 AUTHORIZING THE BOARD CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED TO EXPEDITE THE COUNTY'S
LAND RIGHTS ACQUISITION PROGRAM FOR THE CURRENT CHAIRHAN'S TENURE
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 98-10 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND
STATUTORY DEEDS FOR THE G.A.C. LAND SALES TRUST CONVEYED TO COLLIER
COUNTY BY AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC. (AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1983)
BY THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE CURRENT CHAIRHAN'S TENURE
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 98-11 AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO EXECUTE DEEDS AND
AGREEMENTS FOR DEED TO RIGHT OF INTERMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF BURIAL
LOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY FOR THE CURRENT
CHAIRMA~'S TENURE
Item #16D5
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENT
FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE RE DERILIEN DORESTIN & ROSEHIE DORESTIN, LOT
3, BLOCK 239, UNIT 7, GOLDEN GATE, FLORIDA
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 98-12, AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COHMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY TO ACCEPT STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Item #16D7- Deleted
Item #16D8
PURCHASE OF FIVE MEDIUM-DUTY ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCES USING
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BID NO. SC0057-96 AND USE OF RESERVES IN THE MOTOR
POOL CAPITAL RECOVERY FUND (522) TO REPLACE ONE AMBULANCE DAMAGED IN AN
ACCIDENT - PURCHASED FROM HEDIC MASTER CORP. IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$544,875.00
Item #16D9
AGREEMENT WITH THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA TO
SETTLE DISPUTED HEDICAID OVERPAYMENTS TO THE COUNTY FOR THE PERIOD
FEBRUARY 1, 1993 TO FEBRUARY 13, 1997
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-103, 98-107 AND 98-108
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC
has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated
on the miscellaneous correspondence.
Item #1611
STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED STEPHEN
R. WATTS V. BETTER ROADS, INC., COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, CASE NO. 97-2201-CA-01-TB
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much, and we'll see you all
next week. This meeting's adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:42 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BARBARA BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
By: Sherrie B. Radin