BCC Minutes 11/22/1994 RREGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 1994,
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 9:09 a.m. In Regular Session in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Timothy J. Constantine
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Ken B. Cuyler, County Attorney
Honorable Franklin G. Baker
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning and welcome to the
Tuesday, November 22, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners
which should be a particularly festive day. Mr. Dotrill, if you'd be
so kind as to lead us in the invocation and the pledge to the flag.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, during this week of
Thanksgiving, we have so much to be thankful for in Collier County and
in these United States of America. Father, we feel that this is truly
the greatest country in the world, and we thoroughly enjoy the
wonderful quality of life and its benefit for all of its people here
in Collier County.
Father, this morning we share in the pride and anticipation
of those family members who are here to induct these two new county
commissioners. We pray that their term in office would be both
successful and fruitful for those who they have chosen to represent.
Father, finally this morning, and as always, we ask that You
bless these business deliberations this morning and that You would
guide the hand of this county commission as they effect the changes in
this community, and we ask that You bless this meeting. We pray these
things in your Son's Holy name. Amen.
(Attendees invoked the Pledge of Allegiance.)
Item #1
NEWLY ELECTED COMHISSIONES PAM MAC'KIE AND TIM HANCOCK SWORN IN AS
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY JUDGE BAKER
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The first item on the agenda this
morning will be a rather enjoyable one. We are swearing in two new
commissioners, Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner Hancock.
Commissioner Mac'Kie's parents, Mr. And Mrs. Charles Spell are with us
this morning, I understand. Y'all want to stand. And Commissioner
Hancock has -- his dad has come in from Dallas, Texas, Mr. Jim
Hancock, your wife Valetie and also your sister-in-law Robin Conte.
With us this morning the Honorable Judge Frank Baker to do the
official swearing in. So if y'all would like to go down to the well.
Judge Baker, thank you very much.
JUDGE BAKER: It's my pleasure, Tim. Usually what I do
when I'm standing before this type of group is welcome you to jury
service.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's kind of like that except it
lasts four years.
JUDGE BAKER: Okay. Tim and Pam, are y'all both ready
to make the transition from private life to public sector?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As ready as I can be.
JUDGE BAKER: All right. Would you raise your right
hands, please? Say after me, I -- State your name, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I, Pam Mac'Kie --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, Tim Hancock --
JUDGE BAKER: -- Do solemnly swear or affirm --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Do solemnly swear or affirm --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Do solemnly swear or affirm --
JUDGE BAKER: -- That I will support, protect, and
defend --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- That I will support, protect,
and defend --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- That I will support, protect,
and defend --
JUDGE BAKER: -- The Constitution and Government of the
United States --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- The Constitution and
Government of the United States --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- The Constitution and
Government of the United States --
JUDGE BAKER: -- And of the State of Florida --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- And of the State of Florida --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- And of the State of Florida --
JUDGE BAKER: -- That I am duly qualified to hold office
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- That I am duly qualified to
hold office --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- That I am duly qualified to
hold office --
JUDGE BAKER: -- Under the Constitution of the State --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- Under the Constitution of the
State --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Under the Constitution of the
State -- JUDGE BAKER: -- And that I will -- I will well and
faithfully --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- And that I will well and
faithfully --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- And that I will well and
faithfully --
JUDGE BAKER: -- Perform the duties of commissioner --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- Perform the duties of
commissioner --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Perform the duties of
commissioner --
JUDGE BAKER: -- Of which I am now about to enter.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- Of which I am now about to
enter.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Of which I am now about to
enter.
JUDGE BAKER: So help me God.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So help me God.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So help me God.
JUDGE BAKER: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you very much. Pam told me
I had to speak first so I'll do that. Just briefly, the first thing I
want to say is to my wife and to my father, thank you. It doesn't get
any -- any different than that. Just thank you to all of you for
being here today. It means a terrific amount to me to see the support
from the community for those of us that have stepped into this ring,
and I look forward to your support in the next four years as we move
ahead and try and do what's best for this community as a whole.
That's the one and only promise that I'm sure I could stick to over
the next four years, and I thank you for support and look forward to
working with each and every one of you on the different levels in the
coming years. And, again, thank you very much for being here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, awesome responsibility, and
I want you to know I take it really seriously and that it's a great
deal of trust that I feel has been placed in me, and it's something
that I intend to honor and to do my best to live up to. Thank you for
coming. Thank you for the love and support that I feel in this room,
and thank you for being there before, and please keep being there
after. People had told me the swearing in was today and the swearing
at starts very soon. So I hope that's not true. Thanks.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRKLAN CONSTANTINE: We need the changes to the
agenda, Hr. Dotrill. I believe we have several today.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, there are several, and good
morning. We have five add-on items. The first item is 4C which will
appear under "Proclamations" presentation. It is a proclamation
designating December the 4th as Naples Aviation Sunday. It will be
4C.
4A(3) will appear under "Community Development." It is
a recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Quail West
unit one and that portion of the replat for Block C.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That item will be 8A(3)?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Item 8H(5) under the county
manager's executive office will be recommendation to approve some
supplemental land surveying services as part of the environmental
permitting for the four-laning of 951 South Davis Boulevard.
Item 10C will appear under the "Board of County
Commissioners" at the request of Commissioner Matthews which is a
proposed resolution regarding the issuance of a DEP permit as it
pertains to the Wiggins Pass and Cocohatchee River.
Item 10D, also under the "Commission," a request of
Commissioner Hac'Kie will be a request for direction concerning a
proposed referendum as it pertains to a local option one-cent sales
tax.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, if I could ask
Commissioner Hac'Kie if there's a need to vote on that today or would
you -- would you think that we could wait until the next scheduled
meeting which is two weeks from now? I think there's been a lot of
groups and the public that would like to be here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. My goal for today is
just to ask some questions of staff so we can have them answered maybe
in a couple of weeks when we come back to vote.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Would that be more
appropriate then under the -- MR. DORRILL: For a discussion item then, it can remain
as a discussion item if -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- That's what it's going to be under 10D.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, that's all of the add-ons. I
do have one request for a withdrawal this morning, and that request is
12C(1) under "Advertised Public Hearings" as it pertains to water and
sewer service accounts specifically providing interest on deposits.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. CUYLER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Mr. Cuyler, any changes?
No changes.
Commissioner Norris?
Nothing further.
Commissioner Hancock?
None.
Commissioner Hac'Kie?
No.
Commissioner Matthews?
No.
We'll entertain a motion to
approve the agenda and consent to agenda with changes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So moved.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and second. All those in
favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So far this new board is all in
agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unanimous.
Item #3
MINUTES OF UTILITY BILLING AND SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP OF
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 AND IMPACT FEES AND FINAL BUDGET HEARING OF
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Approval of minutes, September 28
workshop and September 28 impact fee and final budget hearing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I move that we
approve the minutes of September 28 and the special workshop also held
that date.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor of that motion be so kind as to state aye. Motion
appears to carry 5-0.
Item #4A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 23, 1995, AS MARCO ISLAND QUEST FOR
PEACE DAY - ADOPTED
Proclamations and service awards. Commissioner Norris,
you have Marco Island Quest for Peace Day.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you very much. Is Betty Bruno here? There she is. I see her. Betty,
would you come forward and stand here and turn around where the people
in TV land can see you.
MS. BRUNO: Of course.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Turn around and face the music
there or camera. Excuse me.
The proclamation reads, "Whereas, Marco Island Quest for
Peace, Incorporated, is a totally non-political, non-sectarian and
non-profit organization with a mission to demonstrate to the world
that dedicated people can ignite a desire for lasting world peace; and
"Whereas, Marco Island Quest for Peace, Incorporated's,
mission is to stress that the desire for peace must grow person by
person until it engulfs all races, all creeds, all nations to become a
power that leads mankind to the ultimate harmony of peace in the
universe; and
"Whereas, the Marco Island community realizes that it
must join together to show its support for world peace and will do
that in a peace celebration on Marco Beach Monday, January 23, 1995.
"Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Monday, January
23, 1995, be designated as Marco Island Quest for Peace Day.
"Done and ordered this 22nd day of November, 1994, by
the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida."
And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we
accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor, please state aye. Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Betty, for coming up.
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And, Commissioner Matthews, we
have one service award today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, we do. Michael Fartell
from Road and Bridge. Is he with us? He's with us today, and he's
been with the county for five years. We have a service award for him.
Suitable for framing. Congratulations.
MR. FARRELL: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Well done.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 8, 1994, AS CIVIL
AIR PATROL WEEK AND DECEMBER 4, 1994, AS NAPLES AVIATION SUNDAY -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if we have with us Lieutenant
Colonel John W. Kern -- Please come on up, and, as Commissioner Norris
says, turn around and face the music or, in this case, face the
cameras anyway so that everyone in TV land can see.
We have a proclamation which says, "Whereas, the men and
women of the Civil Air Patrol, civilian auxiliary of the United States
Air Force has, since its inception, worked devotedly in the cause of
aviation and on behalf of the people of this nation; and
"Whereas, the patriotic civilian volunteers making up
this organization have given unstintingly of their personal resources
and even of their lives in the relief of suffering and the
safeguarding of the lives and property of their fellow Americans
through the performance of air and ground search and rescue, mercy
missions and disaster relief; and
"Whereas, these same civilian volunteers have
established and dedicated themselves to maintaining an effective
national program of aerospace education and training of our youth; and
"Whereas, on December 1, 1941, six days before Pearl
Harbor, the national organization of the Civil Air Patrol was formed,
and the Naples Senior Squadron was formed in 1952, dedicated to the
services of humanity;
"Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
December 1 through 8, 1994, be designated as Civil Air Patrol Week and
Sunday, December 4, 1994, as Naples Aviation Sunday and urge all
citizens to celebrate with the Senior and Cadet Squadrons by attending
their open house at the Hayes Hangar at Naples Airport on Sunday
December 4 from 8 a.m. To 4 p.m."
"Done and ordered this 22nd day of November, 1994,
Board of County Commissioners, Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman."
I'd like to make a motion that we approve and accept
this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion. All those in
favor state aye. And the motion carries 5-0.
I'm going to need you to go over to the microphone, and
if you'd identify yourself for our record as well.
MR. COLCOHBE: My name is Stan Colcombe, and I'm, of
course, in John's district. This affair is being supported by the
Naples Airport Authority, by the Naples Pilots Association and by the
Experimental Aircraft Association. And the reason it's being done is
it's our 53rd anniversary, but it's also a fund raiser for the Civil
Air Patrol.
The Naples Pilots Association are going to give rides to
the public for $10 an adult, $5 a child. The proceeds of that event
will be donated to Civil Air Patrol so we can carry on our functions
throughout the year.
Also, the experimental aircraft association are going to
prepare a pancake breakfast, eggs, bacon, and pancakes, and it will
start eight o'clock until 11:00. At one o'clock, they'll start a
barbecue. So there will be something to eat all day long.
Dave Rist is going to be our HC. We have -- We have a
-- quite a few aircraft that will be on display and other exhibits
coming in from other parts of the state. There will be a showing of a
new training aircraft that has never been shown before, and the first
showing will be at our facility. It's the first showing in the United
States. You're all welcome to come. We'll look forward to seeing you.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Again, Sunday,
December 4 --
MR. COLCOHBE: Sunday.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- 8:00 a.m. To 4 p.m.
MR. COLCOHBE: Yes, sir.
Item #5
BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-58 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And with that, we'll move on to
the budget amendments. Mr. Smykowski, good morning.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, Acting Budget
Director. There's one budget amendment that requires the board's
approval this morning. It's simply correcting an error in data entry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for our staff on that?
There's a motion. I'll take that as a second. There's a motion and a
second. All those in favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed?
The motion carries 5-0.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #8A2
AGREEHENT TO PROVIDE LOCAL FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM IN COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Moving right along, 8A(1),
request the Board of County Commissioners -- Whoops. This is a
companion item with 12B. Why don't we take that when 12B comes along.
8A(2), approval to execute an agreement to provide local
funds to support the Transportation Disadvantaged Program in Collier
County. Has this item been withdrawn, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. I'm waiting trying to get Mr.
Clark's attention.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dick.
MR. DORRILL: Do you know who on your staff is
presenting item 8A(2)?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of quick questions
on this to maybe save you a little bit of the presentation. This is
similar to what we have done in the past?
MR. ARNOLD: This is very similar to what we've done.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We've already budgeted for this
item in our regular budgeting process? It's -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Planned out? All we're doing
is going through the motion of formalizing it?
MR. ARNOLD: This is the formalization of that for the
agreement for the Transportation Disadvantaged Program. Mr. Perry
unfortunately is not with us this morning. He was unable to be here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any reason why we would
not want to continue doing this program?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely not.
MR. ARNOLD: To my knowledge, no.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As chairman for the committee
for the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Transportation Disadvantaged,
I'd like to make a motion that we approve and execute this agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion, please state aye. Motion carries
5-0.
Item #8A3
RESOLUTION 94-812 APPROVING FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF QUAIL WEST
UNIT ONE, REPLAT BLOCK C - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT
AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item 8A(3) is a routine item, Quail West, replat for the
C block.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, this is a routine request.
It's part of the changes to the agenda. You did receive a completed
executive summary, and the associated exhibits to that that have been
reviewed and approved by the attorney's office which is our one
condition to have an add-on of this nature, and we will make a copy of
this available to the recorder here this morning as well and I would
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Everything is in order for the
normal --
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I make a motion.
MR. DORRILL: It has to be and must be reviewed by the
attorney's office.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
now. Motion --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
finally.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
in favor of the motion state aye.
There has been a motion.
Motion to approve.
Second.
Well, everybody's on the record
You're giving us a chance
Hotion and a second. All those
Hotion carries 5-0.
Item #SH1
RESOLUTION 94-813 APPROVING A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK -
AIRPORT SECURITY FENCING - ADOPTED
Item 8H(1), recommendation the BCC approve a Joint
Participation Agreement. I assure you, we don't always move this
quickly; however, this appears to be a motion to accept $18,000 in
form of a grant that we don't have to pay back. Perhaps --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any discussion necessary on that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Drury, is there anything you
need to explain to us on this? You're more than welcome to. We don't
want to rush through any items.
MR. DRURY: Commissioners, John Drury, Executive
Director, Collier County Airport Authority. You've summarized it. It
is a grant for $18,000. The budget for that item would have to be
increased to 21,000, and then it would be paid with the existing
$3,000 that's budgeted and then an $18,000 grant from the Florida
Airport Division. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No new unanticipated expenses
from the county?
MR. DRURY: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No new unanticipated expenditures
from the county?
MR. DRURY: No additional cost to the county.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion, please state aye. Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0. We're on a roll.
Item #8H2
RESOLUTION 94-814 AND 94-815 ACCEPTING TWO $90,000 AIRPORT GRANTS
TOTALING $180,000 FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF TWO AIRPORT MASTER PLANS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN FOR THE
IHMOKALEE REGIONAL AND EVERGLADES AIRPARK AIRPORTS AND AUTHORIZING
TRANSFER OF $20,000 FROM AIRPORT RESERVES TO LEVERAGE THE $180,000
AIRPORT GRANTS - ADOPTED
8H(2), recommendation that BCC accepts two $90,000
airport grants totalling $180,000. Mr. Drury.
MR. DRURY: Again, John Drury, for the record. We have
received two grants in the amount of $90,000 a piece to do an
environmental master plan and an airport master plan at Immokalee
Regional Airport and Everglades Airpark.
We have -- The county had budgeted about 4.6 percent in
reserves to do all of the other projects. What we're asking is that
$20,000 be transferred from reserves to leverage this $180,000 in
grants. This wouldn't be any additional cost to the county.
Basically what we would be doing is increasing the budget amount for
this item to $200,000. 180,000 of it will come from airport grants.
20,000 would come from reserves for all of our other capital
improvement projects that we have budgeted for this year.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So we're increasing the amount;
however, we're, in effect, decreasing the amount that you would have
been using from reserves?
MR. DRURY: Correct. We're decreasing reserves by
20,000, and then we're transferring that 20,000 to do these airport
master plans.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Drury?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: These airport master plans, were
they to fall under the CIP umbrella originally? Then when the money
was originally earmarked 4.6 percent, was it for this type of project?
MR. DRURY: When we originally set up the budget for
this Capital Improvement Program, we had anticipated doing an airport
master plan for the following year. The Florida Department of
Transportation has issued about $3 million in grants for these
airports and has requested that we do a master plan this year in
conjunction with all those projects. In order to motivate us to do
that, they have given us $180,000 to do that, and I said that I would
bring it before this Board of County Commission.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
discussion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
It's a big motivator, isn't it?
I feel motivated.
Motion to -- If there's no other
Appears not.
Motion to approve.
There's a motion and a second. We
didn't have any public speakers on that, did we, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. The only ones we have today are
8A thus far.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion,
please state aye. Motion carries 5-0, appears to.
MR. DRURY: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #8H3
STAFF REPORT ON EFFLUENT HANAGEHENT OPTIONS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND RECOHMENDATION TO PROCEED
WITH SELECTED ALTERNATIVE - CONTINUED FOR TWO WEEKS
CHAIRKLAN CONSTANTINE: Staff report on effluent
management options. I suspect this one might not go so quickly. Hr.
Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Tom Conrecode for the Capital Projects Office. What I'd like
to do is simply introduce this item for you and then have the
engineering consultant come up and walk you through the options that
are outlined in the staff report.
The board has seen this item on a number of occasions,
and it relates to the options that are available for dealing with
effluent disposal, principally at the south plant. Staff would ask
the board today to consider their previous direction on surface
management and disposal of the effluent and the direction previously
on deep-well injection systems.
I'll turn it over to Tom Taylor of Hole, Hontes to walk
you through the number of options that we've evaluated and what some
of the pros and cons of each of those options are.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Good morning. For the record, Tom Taylor
with Hole, Hontes and Associates. I'll be giving the initial portion
of the presentation. Mr. Kirk Martin with Viro Group -- or excuse me
-- with Hissimer International will be giving you the presentation on
some of the technical aspects of deep wells themselves.
The last time we were before you, you had asked that we
give you a presentation on what some of your alternatives are for
effluent disposal as opposed to the deep well. We have prepared a
brief engineering report. I think we've -- each of you have received
a copy of that. I'd like to walk you through it very briefly, and
feel free to ask any questions at any time.
The first is a bar chart that's an indication of what
your total flows at your wastewater plant are today, and it's a
representation of your average daily flow for each month during the
past fiscal year.
During the dry periods, during that March, April, Hay
time period, you are able to dispose of the large majority of your
effluent through your tense program that you currently have at
approximately a dozen golf courses in the south county area.
The red component of the bar chart represents the amount
that is not tensed at the golf courses, and that currently goes to
off-site percolation ponds, both the Glades off-site ponds and the
Lely Resort ponds. With the exception of those dry-period months, a
large majority of your effluent still has to go to percolation ponds.
So when it's raining and the golf courses aren't taking it or anytime
the effluent is generated in excess of what the golf courses are
taking, you'd have to have another disposal site available.
We have prepared a second bar chart which is a
representation as though your flows were increasing up to the design
capacity of the treatment plant which is at eight million gallons per
day. Current flows during peak season are around four million gallons
per day.
If you were to double your -- even double your reuse
capacity -- as I indicated, you have about 12 golf courses on the
system today. If you were to double that reuse component, you would
still have a significant shortfall in your effluent disposal
capability. So doubling the reuse from your current capacity or your
current capabilities and comparing that to what your total flows would
be at the design capacity of the facility, you still have a very large
red component of the bar chart which is the unreused component. So
you have to have someplace to send it when it's raining or no one else
is using it.
The alternatives that we have available to us or that
historically have been available, one of them is surface water
discharge. That could be discharged to any of the canal systems. It
could be discharged to the bay. It could be discharged to Rookery
Bay. It could be discharged to the Gulf of Mexico. However, none of
those alternatives at this time are considered permitable by the
Department of Environmental Protection, and the primary reason for
that is a rule that's called the Anti-Degradation Rule that went into
effect ten to 15 years ago that said any new wastewater dischargers
could not do so if they would degrade the native water quality. And
DEP considers any type of wastewater discharge as a degradation of the
native water quality in class two waters. Naples Bay and Rookery Bay
are considered class two waters; so, therefore, any canal system that
would be tributary to those systems, you would not be able to
discharge to, at least under the current guidelines and
interpretations of DEP. If you were to be able to do that, we would
have to do an advanced wastewater treatment upgrade to the facility
that would cost approximately as a plus or minus $6 million figure
over and above what you have already allocated to the plant upgrades.
A second alternative is wetlands discharge. This is an
alternative that's been used, you know, approximately a half dozen
times or so around the state. There's one particular large
application in the Orlando area that's been done between the City of
Orlando and Orange County. They have done a combination of a man-made
created wetlands in association with some natural wetlands as well.
One of the primary benefits of this alternative is that
it is a conservation-type measure. It also is highly reliable if it's
permitable.
In this case, and in all cases, of wetlands discharge,
the Department of Environmental Protection still considers wetlands
disposal as an experimental method. It is written into the rules at
this time as an experimental method. We recently did a small-scale
wetlands disposal option down in Port of the Islands. It took
approximately a year to permit a 35-acre site. It is permitted at
Tallahassee rather than at the local DEP district office in Fort
Myers.
It would require, again, an AWT upgrade to the treatment
facility advanced waste treatment. That would, again, cost
approximately $6 million. It's very land-intensive. One of the
larger negatives of wetlands disposal is having ultimate control of
the wetlands. You must have either a perpetual easement or ownership
of the wetlands in order to be able to discharge to them.
Based on DEP's allowed application rate of effluent to
wetlands, you would require roughly 1,000 acres of wetted area, of
wetland area. So you would -- you would be looking at a minimum of
1,000 acres for the eight-million-gallon-a-day facility and
potentially upward, depending on how much upland is incorporated in
the land that you might require or require easement to. You've got a
significant land investment cost associated with that as a result.
In addition, depending on where the wetlands are, you
would have whatever piping and delivery system might be required and a
distribution system rather than -- you would not be allowed to
discharge as a point source just having one pipe with all the water
coming out that pipe. You would have to distribute it over the
wetlands in some fashion.
The wetlands disposal alternative is also -- it's a high
operation and maintenance cost. It's an ongoing requirement for doing
wetlands monitoring. You have to do your wetland surveys, your plant
surveys on a routine basis, and there's also extensive requirements
for water, groundwater, and surface water sampling and testing that's
required on an ongoing basis.
The third alternative and one that's been used in the
past as a component of your effluent disposal system is percolation
ponds. As I had mentioned, the south county system currently has two
primary sites that are used for percolation ponds as a backup and
supplemental method to your reuse, and that's the Glades off-site
ponds and then the off-site Lely Resort ponds as well.
In large -- One of the advantages -- A couple of the
advantages of that alternative is it is a conservation-type method.
You are recharging your groundwater via percolating the water back
into the groundwater. It does not require an advanced waste treatment
upgrade as opposed to the two previous alternatives that I discussed
with you. So that the existing treatment levels that you have at your
facility are adequate for percolation ponds.
A primary disadvantage is the local geology and the
groundwater levels that we have here in Collier County. We have an
awful lot of rock, and we have a very high groundwater table. As a
result of that, the percolation is not necessarily vertically. Your
water does not percolate downward. You have more of a lateral
migration of the water that you're applying into your percolation
ponds. As a result, there's a requirement or there's a need to have
very large land areas in order to accommodate disposal of the volumes
of effluent that you currently have and are projected to have as the
facility continues to increase in flow.
DEP is -- does not necessarily look favorable on
percolation ponds in this area in large-scale operations, and the
reason is because the historical problems that they've experienced
with the existing facilities that have percolation ponds. Again, it's
-- it is a permitable alternative. In my opinion, though, it is one
that DEP would permit. It does require an extensive amount of land.
It would require somewhere between three and 900 acres as a ballpark
depending on the actual site-specific conditions of rock and the
percolation capacity of any piece of land that you might select.
It is limited somewhat by climatic conditions. When
it's raining, you're just adding more water on top of your effluent
that you're already trying to get rid of.
As a result of the land acquisition, you have a large --
well, what I would believe would be a large capital expenditure for
land acquisition. In addition to that, you would have a large capital
expenditure for improvement of the site which would require a
significant amount of fill to be brought onto the site, more than
likely.
The fourth alternative that's available is the deep-well
injection. Some potential advantages, the geology of Collier County
is favorable for deep-well injection. There is a high probability of
permitting by DEP. And, in fact, this has been indicated to us as
being DEP's preferred method based on their knowledge of the local
area and the existing situation. It does require very little land, and
it does not require the AWT upgrade in order to proceed with the
deep-well injection system.
Some of the disadvantages are that it provides no tense.
It is not a conservation method. Once the water goes down the deep
well, it's gone. There is a significant capital expenditure that is
required. It's somewhere in the six to $9 million range. As opposed
to some of the other alternatives that I've discussed with you, this
is a total package cost. There are no other ancillary costs that we
haven't been able to put any dollars on. So that's a total estimated
cost for two wells.
That gives you a brief summary of some of the advantages
and disadvantages. Kirk Martin will give you a presentation on some
of the local geology and a discussion briefly of some of the areas
that have had failures in the past and why they've had them.
MR. HARTIN: Good morning. For the record, I'm Kirk
Martin, Vice President of Hissimer International. Basically from a
standpoint of what I call a three-legged stool of wastewater disposal
-- that being, permitability, what we're allowed to do; feasibility,
what will work and have a long-term reliability; and cost -- deep-well
injection is the direction that we're being pointed toward at this
time.
Unfortunately there are a lot of environmental concerns
that go along with deep-well injection. For that reason, DEP and EPA
have created quite a litany of high protocols and testing that has to
be done with injection wells.
Why I'm here today is to maybe try and relieve some
fears that anybody might have about injection wells. Mainly it's a
lesser understood disposal technology, and so real quickly I'd like to
go through that, and if you have any questions, stop me along the way.
That's fine.
Essentially in Florida right now there are 76 class one
injection wells. Fifteen of those are located in Southwest Florida.
Today there have been no failures known of injection wells in
Southwest Florida. By contrast, there have been numerous documented
failures of percolation ponds and also well-known documentation of
degradation of surface waters.
There have been -- In addition to these 76 wells, there
have been I don't know how many tens or hundreds of class three
injection wells for patrolling brine disposal in a saline oil field
located in central Collier County. These have been in place since the
1940s and no failures have occurred.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Those brine disposal wells are
disposing into a formation that's already brine; is that correct?
MR. HARTIN: Correct. That's correct. It's a --
Actually, the brine that's being disposed of is what's called a heavy
brine. It's actually salt --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What those wells are doing is
separating the petroleum from the salt water that comes up with it --
MR. HARTIN: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- And reinjecting the salt water
into --
MR. HARTIN: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- A similar formation?
MR. HARTIN: Well, actually, it's not similar because
that brine is actually worse than sea water, and it's being injected
into a sea water aquifer. It's actually heavy -- a more dense, a more
salty water.
Failures that have occurred in injection wells have
occurred in the Pinellas County area and Brevard County area, and what
I wanted to show is why Collier County is totally unrelated to those
failures. As a matter of fact, earlier this year there was proposed
legislation to actually -- to ban injection wells in those two
counties. It did not pass because they felt the regulation could take
care of keeping those wells from happening. But, essentially, the
geology is not good in those areas versus Collier County which is very
good.
This essentially is a -- just a line, a cross-section
taken into account eight or ten wells running from Pinellas County to
Collier County. This then is the -- is that cross-section
essentially. On the left-hand side is the north end of that
cross-section, Pinellas County. The right-hand side will be the south
end at Marco Island.
You can see in the Collier County area we have what is
called -- known as the boulder zone. It's a very highly fractured,
very porous limestone and dolomite. It occurs at depths approximately
2,500 feet to 3,000 feet. Essentially that zone extends up into
Charlotte County, and at that point it no longer is a viable injection
Zone.
As you move northward into Pinellas County area, they
have what they call the Avon Park permeability zone. It doesn't have
near the capacity to take water that our boulder zone does. But, more
importantly, you can notice that it's only 500 feet deep, very near
their drinking water supplies. For that reason, there have been
wastewaters or whatever is injected into that zone move into drinking
water supplies in that area.
By contrast, Collier County, there's over 2,000 feet of
what's known as confining beds. These are very tight limestones or
clays that essentially impede or prohibit movement of water.
Finally, just to bring it a little closer to home, this
is a more detailed cross-section in the Collier County area. The zones
in blue are freshwater aquifers. That's essentially the two aquifers
in Collier County that we get drinking water supplies from. Primarily
we use the lower aquifer. That's the second aquifer.
The zones in the brownish color are brackish water
zones. And the injection zone itself at 3,000 feet is a sea water
zone. All the cross-hatched areas are the confining beds I was
referring to. This adds up to, like I said, over 2,000 feet of
impediment to flow.
You'll also notice that I've drawn a typical production
well, a drinking water well on the left-hand side. Typical drinking
water wells in Collier County are in the order of 100 to 150 feet
deep.
The injection well, on the other hand, has numerous
casings involved where the potable wells only have one. The first
casing extends down to -- down through both the freshwater aquifers
and through the first confining bed, and it's a half-inch steel
casing, and within that casing is put a grout seal. Inside that
casing is another half-inch steel casing that extends down through
most of the brackish water zones past what's known as the drinking
water line which is 10,000 TDS line. That's -- We don't drink water
above that. We drink -- only drink water here, but that's a regulated
line, 10,000 TDS. So the second half-inch steel casing goes through
that zone down to a depth of 1,400 feet or so. Again, that's a cement
seal. The third and final casing is run all the way down to the
injection zone. Again, it's a half-inch steel casing with cement
grout.
The entire drilling process takes about six months. This
is not because the drilling is that difficult. The drilling itself
would only take a matter of a few weeks. It's because of all the
protocol and all the testing that's put on deep-well drilling by the
regulation.
Drilling goes on 24 hours a day for six months
essentially and there's supervised -- supervision of that construction
during that whole time 24 hours a day.
In addition, there are two zones that have to be
monitored continuously once operation begins. These are recorded for
pressure and for water quality. Any change in pressure or water
quality would promulgate for you to look into what may be happening in
the injection well. So this is a safety factor to guard against any
movement of water up toward the freshwater aquifers.
In addition to that, there's what's called an
injectivity test done every month at the injection well and every five
years require a mechanical integrity test which tests to make sure
there's no leaks or any lack of integrity in this casing and cement
grout system.
Bottom line, there's many, many stipulations put on the
injection wells, and for that reason it's very reliable, very safe
technology, especially in Collier County where we have the geology to
take it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does that conclude your
presentation? I suspect we're going to have a few questions on this
item. Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I want to start. The
gentleman was talking about confining beds. Has any tests, reliable
or not, been done to determine the pressures that these confining beds
can tolerate?
MR. MARTIN: What's done is vertical permeability, how
well water can travel through that vertically. It's measured during
the testing process. Cores are taken. These are done by laboratory
tests. In addition, there's pumping tests done which measure how well
water moves through there. Once you have that number, you can apply
any pressure to it and calculate how fast water would move through it.
Essentially pressure and permeability will give you the time of
travel. So, yeah, it's done.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there anybody statewide who's
regulating the wells that are being sunk into the Floridan or in the
confining beds above it for the purpose of either the deep-well
injection or the ASR? Because, frankly, I'm concerned because water
is virtually incompressible and the confining beds above it would '-
I'm concerned about contaminating other aquifers.
MR. MARTIN: Right. As you might know, right now
Collier County is undergoing a study for future RO supplies. The two
zones that are being looked at are these first two zones at depths of
around 400 feet and around 800 feet. Again, the injection zone is
done at a depth of 3,000 feet and there's actually -- there's
absolutely no hydraulic connection between that and these zones up
here.
Again, if you were to move up to the northern or central
part of the state where their injection zones are very near their
upper aquifers, then, yes, you could start pumping one of these
aquifers and see pressure changes and water traveling from one zone to
the other. Again, it's a matter of how much thickness and how tight
those sediments are that keeps the water from moving between them.
There is what is called a TAC, Technical Advisory
Committee, that's made up of the DEP, the EPA, the Water Management
District, and the USGS that essentially makes all the decisions on
permitting injection wells. So it's not one agency that takes this
into account.
The TAC Committee reviews every detail of the technical
specifications, the overall plan, how the whole program is going to
work. In addition, any -- during the drilling process, construction
process, any decisions are made along the process that TAC has to come
together to meet and make those decisions. So it's a very highly
scrutinized process that's done by a number of agencies.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Increased pressures that we
might generate on these aquifers in Collier County aren't going to
affect at all the aquifers further toward the central part of the
state?
MR. MARTIN: Oh, no. Not at all. Again, you're talking
about -- Especially in this injection zone here, when I talk about
cavernous permeability, you're talking caves, that there's -- What
causes pressure when you inject into an aquifer is the frictional --
there's a friction on the water moving through that rock. When you
have very open rock, there's hardly any friction. In fact, the only
pressure that's really built up is the fact we're pumping essentially
fresh water into a saline water. Because of that, there's a buoyancy.
Freshwater wants to float on saline water, and there's actually a
pressure created by that.
I've actually done some preliminary calculations just on
that buoyancy factor. It turns out that water could move through this
confinement at a rate of about one foot per year. We figured it would
move about 500 feet in about 500 years. So, again, it doesn't even
get into this aquifer here much less anything up above.
MR. MCNEES: Commissioner, the other half to your
question -- Mike HcNees from Utilities Division. It's important to
recognize that -- As you'll recall, when Mr. Taylor gave you the
positives of some of the other options, that one of the positive
factors to percolation ponds, just as one of the positive factors for
irrigation, is that eventually that water becomes aquifer recharge.
This is water that is considered -- if it can eventually percolate
from the surface into the aquifer, that's a positive factor. The
water quality of this is such that contamination, so to speak, is not
really an issue. It's just the regulators feel differently about this
water when it comes from 3,000 feet up as opposed to when it comes
from the surface down. So contamination isn't really a factor.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not concerned about
contamination of the injection water. I know that we deliver it
fairly clean. What I'm concerned about is contamination from one
aquifer to the next. And, you know, we are not an island here, and we
are connected to the rest of the state. And I guess my concerns are
that we don't do something here that causes difficulty in other parts
of the state and then we have to abandon a project that we've put a
lot of time and effort into because the central part of the state is
having difficulty based on what we did.
MR. MARTIN: Again, the zone we're injecting to only
exists in the southwest -- or, actually, the southern part of the
peninsula. It contains sea water everywhere it's at. There's no
freshwater in it anywhere. We're essentially pumping fresh, very
clean water, as Mike pointed out, into a sea water aquifer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Martin, something that may
help in this is I envision this zone we initially discussed it as a
balloon, if you will, that once it's full has the potential to rupture
the aquifers above it. You explained to me that that's not exactly
true; that, in fact, the water is going to move laterally to possibly
entering the sea water, either the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic. MR. MARTIN: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess the only way I can feel
comfortable with that is knowing that the pressure which it takes to
reach that outfall, if you will, is less than the pressure which it
takes to rupture an aquifer. That's a level of assurance I'd like to
have before --
MR. MARTIN: Rupturing an aquifer is not even a
consideration. What could happen, you could rupture a casing or
rupture cement if you -- if you put hottendons pressures which just
don't even occur in this kind of situation.
You're correct that there is lateral movement. That's
where that pressure's dissipated. Again, pressure is built up by this
friction in this formation. There's very little friction so you have
very little pressure buildup. There is lateral movement away from the
well. In this case, we're talking billions and billions and billions
of gallons of volume in this aquifer versus essentially a trickle into
our injection well. This would -- This trickle would diffuse into
this very porous aquifer. Over many thousands of years, it might make
it to the Gulf of Mexico as a trickle as a well distributed water well
mix into the sea water system.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: As you know, we've spoken before
on this subject and I've voiced my concerns about deep-well injection
for some of the same reasons that I hear today. I think from my
perspective the problem is that, you know, we can -- we can believe
that this is going to work out the way we anticipate, but we can't be
assured that it will, and my concern with this and also with the
aquifer storage and recovery-type well is that we may do something
that somewhere down the line ends up with an unanticipated negative
result. And once you do that, then how do you correct it? It would
be impossible, and you've done it.
Let me give you an example. There was a little story in
the newspaper recently in the last few days about -- over in Russia,
they were pumping nuclear wastewater, contaminated water, into a
deep-well injection system that they thought was highly confined with
shale and clays, and it turns out now that they have found traces in
unexpected locations, and now that it's down in there, there's
anything they can do about it. Now, I'm not by any means trying to
compare our treated wastewater with nuclear waste. But the point is
that once you get under ground there, you don't know what's under
there. You can drill a million test wells, but there can still be
fractures and faults and things that you don't know about and this
water can get away from you.
So as we've discussed before privately and in public,
I'm not really in favor of this method of disposal. I think there's
other ways that we should try first.
And let me ask Mr. Taylor. You said the cost to drill
and complete this well would be something to six -- six to $9 million
range?
MR. TAYLOR: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, what would be the ultimate
capacity of the well?
MR. TAYLOR: Each well is -- The idea it was -- what was
proposed at this time is to permit two wells, and hopefully you'd only
have to construct one well.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
nine million?
MR. TAYLOR: No. No.
two.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Each well --
Each well though would be six to
That's a total cost between the
You could have two wells drilled
and completed for that process?
HR. TAYLOR: That's correct. Each well is proposed as a
24-inch well that was within the original RFP that was sent out for
consulting services. Each well would have a capacity of approximately
15 million gallons per day. Now, the second well serves really as a
backup in case there is a mechanical failure or something of the first
well. We're hoping we can work around that aspect with DEP during the
permitting process so we've got adequate storage and we can
demonstrate some other storage facilities of the golf courses to
hopefully get around that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, the other -- the other --
Earlier in the discussion you mentioned that if we went to an advanced
wastewater treatment system on top of what we already treat, that we
would be able to permit surface water discharge?
MR. TAYLOR: No. We would -- DEP's position at this
point regarding surface waters in Collier County has been that they
will not permit any new surface water dischargers. The City of
Naples, for example, is grandfathered. Theywve been in existence for
a long time, and they preceded the Anti-Degradation Rule. So DEPws
position to us has been that they do not see surface water discharge
as a viable disposal alternative for Collier County. If we were able
to permit it, which theywve said we canwt, we would have to do at
minimum an AWT upgrade.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But we wouldn't be able to
permit it, you're saying?
MR. TAYLOR: DEP has indicated that that is not a viable
alternative.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So then, as I understand it, the
only really viable alternative is percolation ponds?
MR. TAYLOR: I think the percolation ponds is a viable
alternative. I think it's a permitable alternative. It's got its
negatives that we've discussed. The deep well has its positives and
negatives. Wetlands disposal is possibly permitable, but it's got
negatives and some of the long-term issues, and there is probably more
questions about the permitting of that, particularly over, you know, a
reasonable time frame. I think it can take an awfully long time to
accomplish that one.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me go through and see if I
understand. Please interrupt me immediately and tell me where I
misunderstand.
Based on those blue and red graphs you gave us, we have
an immediate problem that we have a storage capacity problem. If we
leave it unaddressed, we're going to find ourselves with DEP citations
or some potential fines. We have four alternatives presented,
although they aren't all available, because surface water discharge is
not available to us because it can't be permitted.
Wetlands discharge is possibly permitable, but we're
talking about having to acquire something like 1,000 acres of
wetlands, so there's an expense associated with that.
The perc ponds, that's what we do right now. And if we
went with percolation ponds to solve this problem, we'd need somewhere
between three to 900 acres of more ponds. And just for my frame of
reference, the Hubschman, Glades ponds that were in the news lately
are, like, 30 to 40 acres. So we're talking about needing 300 to --
What did you say? You're talking about needing 300 to 900 more acres
of perc ponds just to solve the existing problem that we have. And
with perc ponds, the problem is that the water doesn't sink during the
rainy season, and that's when we need to get rid of the water because
that's when the golf courses don't want the water. So even if we buy
all the land, we haven't really addressed the seasonal nature of our
problem.
MR. TAYLOR: Let me correct one thing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
MR. TAYLOR: The three to 900 acres, of which I think
the middle range of that is probably fairly accurate, is to dispose of
not just the -- what's the existing problem. We were trying to
identify a solution to get you to the capacity of the treatment plant
which is eight million gallons per day. So you could acquire and
construct something smaller with the current flows, but as flows
continue to increase, there would be a requirement for more. So we've
identified kind of the bigger picture solution.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How many acres for the present
problem?
MR. TAYLOR: The --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: While you're looking, I mean, I
just think this is -- they're very indicative of something that I've
already talked to our utilities people about that we need a master
plan for this issue, and I understand it's coming, but obviously we're
trying to solve an immediate problem at this point and what we need to
do is be planning to prevent them.
MR. TAYLOR: Probably on a more immediate basis,
probably about a third of that area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So 100 to 300.
MR. TAYLOR: Probably, yes. Probably more in the
200-acre range.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the deep-well injection is
DEP's preferred method for our geology? Did I understand that?
MR. TAYLOR: Yes. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
disagrees.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Somebody in the audience
Who said no? Somebody said no.
I don't know.
Information I need to have. Okay.
Mr. Cuyler, do we have some
public speakers on this item?
HR. CUYLER: We do, Hr. Chairman. The first one is John
Capone, and he'll be followed by Mr. Erlichman. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. CAPONE: Good morning. My name is John Capone. I'm
a member of the Taxpayers Action Group. TAG feels that the engineer's
report presented by Hole, Hontes and Associates does not offer the
entire picture. We would first like to suggest that the county
contact some of the current users of deep-well injection systems in
order to obtain unbiased information which would allow the board to
compare and contrast their problems and requirements with Collier
County's.
Many of the advantages of percolation ponds have been
left out of the engineer's report as have certain disadvantages of
deep-well injection. It also appears that this aspect of the project
is related in certain ways to decision-making concerning the other two
critical items at the South County Wastewater Plant, the aeration
basin and the chlorination system.
Also, it must be stressed that these alternative methods
should only be a backup to the spray irrigation program which needs to
be aggressively pursued for its potential as a revenue source as well
as for its kindness to the environment. Remember, spray irrigation
should be sold as a cost savings for golf courses and reduce chemical
fertilizer that would not have to be added and which is known to run
off causing surface water pollution.
As a backup to spray irrigation, TAG supports a system
of percolation ponds over the deep-well injection system. In defense
of perc ponds, I should remind the board of the cheaper capital
investment as presented by the engineers, three to nine million versus
six to nine million for deep wells. Perc ponds also mean less
operating expenses with regard to energy consumption and expensive
replacement parts.
Field costs for berm maintenance versus electrical costs
would be competitive, especially if the perc ponds are incorporated
into the various golf courses, in which case the county would not have
to bear that expense at all.
Additionally, equipment operators are already on staff
working at the wastewater plants. These unlicensed employees would be
better utilized cutting grass rather than operating sludge wasting
equipment which directly affects process control of the facilities.
Perc ponds also provide additional storage of reclaimed water for
later use negating the need to convert the Orbal aeration basin into a
storage tank.
Groundwater recharge provided by the perc ponds is
crucial to an area such as ours where the climate can go from being
very wet to very dry in a very short time. Pipeline investment would
not be as much of a factor as the engineers would have you believe
since these lines must be installed anyway to provide spray irrigation
to reuse customers.
The engineers also question the capacity of the ponds to
percolate during the rainy season. It should be noted that
percolation ponds are hydrostatically designed to percolate at the
same rate regardless of the groundwater table.
Local geology was also questioned. The underground
percolation process can proceed just as effectively in a lateral
direction given the presence of a perched water table as in a vertical
direction.
We disagree with the statements that local geology
favors deep wells over perc ponds and that deep wells are more
reliable given recent problems at the North County Water Plant and the
potential to plug up wells with solids from the wastewater plant.
Also, during the dry season, the wells may sit, rarely used, for
several months causing seizure of pumps and motors.
Economically speaking, it does not even make sense to
install a deep-well injection system if the county is actively
pursuing spray irrigation as the primary disposal method. Eventually
the deep wells would become the primary method. After all, what fiscal
sense will it make to expand the distribution area if all of the water
can be pumped into the deep wells?
Another problem the engineers did not mention is the
permanent geologic damage that has already been caused by deep wells
in other parts of Florida. Solution activity or dissolution of the
bedding is proportional to the volume -- both the volume of flow
through the bedrock and the acidity of the solution. No mention has
been made by the engineers of chemical cost to buffer the pH of the
injected wastewater in order to prevent solution cavities from
developing in the bedrock which would eventually collapse and cause
sinkholes and subsidence at the surface.
Unnatural pressure and stress created from the large
volume of water being pumped into the bedrock at one point would
create a problem of joint fracturing of the confining bedding. This
would place fresh groundwater at risk of salt water intrusion as is
already occurring in areas of West Central Florida because of these
deep-well injection systems.
In conclusion, TAG believes that the fiscal and
environmental benefits of percolation ponds far outweigh any advantage
of the deep-well system; therefore, we support the construction of
perc ponds over all other methods of effluent disposal as a backup to
spray irrigation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Capone. Your
comments bring up a note that I made early in this discussion, and I
may want to address this to Mr. Taylor. Do we have any numbers?
Obviously treating wastewater to become effluent and sticking it down
in the ground is not what I call reuse. It doesn't seem to make a lot
of sense.
I would much rather aggressively pursue a home
irrigation program if that's financially feasible, and the numbers
that I'm looking for are based on the average of 100 homes, how many
million gallons per day can they consume. We're going to look at a $9
million capital expenditure. If we can pursue whether it be
residential or commercial irrigation systems and almost achieve the
two million gallons per day that we need, I'd rather do that because
it's a true reuse system.
Do you have any numbers on residential irrigation or
commercial irrigation, numbers of properties in million gallons per
day that we can use as some sort of a mix to find out if it's
feasible?
MR. TAYLOR: Yes. First of all, we are very supportive
and have been for these ongoing past ten or 12 years regarding the
county's reuse system. We think that is absolutely a direction the
county should continue to go. We would encourage the county to
continue with reuse systems, both on a bulk user basis and, as
appropriate, on a residential or retail user basis, and it's being
done in various developments in the county. We would encourage that.
We think that should be done.
Based on the analysis work that we had done and working
with the City of Naples because they had a similar situation -- they
needed to evaluate which alternative they should go with. They had the
ability to continue discharge to the river with doing an AWT upgrade.
Giving the volumes that they were requiring to dispose of, it was a
less expensive alternative to go with the AWT upgrade.
Based on those estimates and the work that we had done
there, we had estimated it would cost somewhere in the three to $5
million range for a residential reuse system for each million gallons
of water disposed of. So that will give you an idea. So a ballpark of
maybe two to three million gallons worth of effluent could be disposed
of through a residential reuse program of that similar cost of the six
to $9 million, or the difference though is -- just remember, we need
to continue to compare apples to apples.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's --
MR. TAYLOR: On the deep-well injection system --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what --
MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I was going to say, let's keep
all our -- we're going to have more questions, I think, after all the
public speakers, but let's try to get through the public speakers, and
then we'll come back --
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- With all our questions for
you. Thank you, Mr. Capone. Mr. Erlichman, I believe, was next, and
he'll be followed by --
MR. CUYLER: A1 Perkins.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: He'll be followed by A1 Perkins.
MR. ERLICHHAN: For the record, my name is Gilbert
Erlichman. I reside in east Naples, and I'm a member of TAG.
Good morning, Commissioners, and congratulation to the
two new commissioners --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. ERLICHHAN: -- Hiss Hac'Kie and Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. ERLICHHAN: I only have a few points to add to Mr.
Capone's presentation. I'm referring to the page that was supplied --
the papers that were supplied to you by the consultants and it's page
ten, deep-well injection. I'm looking at the potential disadvantages.
It says, "Provides no beneficial use of reclaimed water." Well, I've
been down here six years in Naples and all I've heard every year is
water shortage, water shortage. You have to -- You have to watch out
for your water usage, et cetera. Well, we're going to be pumping the
effluent down into a deep well and it's gone -- as was said by the
geologist, you pump it down there and it's gone. Well, we're defeating
our own purpose. Why are we treating the water if we're not going to
be using it? The agricultural interest could use that water very
easily in Immokalee, the Immokalee area, and the farm areas besides
the residential users.
Next one, "Owner must provide financial guarantees for
abandoning and plugging well if uncorrectable failure occurs." If it
does occur in the deep well, what is it going to cost taxpayers
besides the money it costs to dig the well? I have no idea what the
cost is.
And then it says, "Permits are not granted until
post-construction testing is complete." In other words, the project
must be completed before permits are issued. Well, what happens if
they don't issue the permits? We've spent all that money and we have
no benefit.
Well, those are three of the points that I wanted to
bring out besides the points that were made by the previous speaker.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Perkins, and he'll be
followed by --
MR. DORRILL: He's your final one, Mr. Chairman.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, A1.
MR. PERKINS: And especially to the two new
commissioners, I want to welcome you to this nightmare on behalf of
the Belle Heade groups which I represent and also on behalf of the
state citizens for -- I can't even think -- constitutional property
rights. Now, needless to say, I don't take those two jobs lightly.
The other commissioners know me well because I'm constantly in their
face about a lot of issues which you most likely will find out that
I'm going to be in your face also.
I work on behalf of the people and especially the kids
of Collier County and for all of you people. I don't get paid. I just
waste my time at times here and with some of the state agencies. The
remarks that I'm making I want everybody, especially the two
commissioners -- two new commissioners to pay attention because my
remarks refer to not only the landfill which has something to do with
the effluent, it also has waste recovery, has to do with sewage and
the use of it such as maloganite, (phonetic) the airports, the Belle
Heade area, composting in Collier County. Okay.
To the item at -- as far as the deep-well injection,
okay, the fact is that if you listen closely to all of the experts
here, you're going to get some distorted facts. I charge you people
with finding out for yourself because in the past not only does the
state but all the agencies will tell you exactly what they want you to
know and nothing more, so you need to find out on your own behalf.
Now, we've heard water, water, water, water, water.
Let's go with facts. The effluent from a sewage disposal or even a
wastewater treatment plant can be drinkable because the health
department states that you cannot take and put it out on the ground
unless it has met all the requirements. If you've ever seen it,
sometimes it looks better than the water that we drink out of the
spigots. Okay.
So now we have a product -- We have a product that's,
first of all, very usable, not only water, but we've also taken -- and
I'll take Mr. Dotrill here for a minute because they are using -- they
are using sewage to make diesel fuel. Now, Mr. Dotrill can never find
that information. And if I owned the oil company, I'd make sure he
would never find that information. It's a fact.
Let's get on with the effluent. The effluent is usable
by all of the farms and anyplace that grows anything because they take
the bacteria out. They leave all the good elements in it.
I want to go to the Rookery Bay, Fakahatchee Strand,
Belle Heade, Southern Estates. If we use percolation ponds and if the
water flows downhill, we can naturally filtrate the water and let it
go into Rookery Bay which they're forever and a day yelling about that
they don't have enough fresh water. If we construct the proper
retaining ponds for the effluent, we can also push back the salt water
intrusion. You can check with the Big Cypress Basin board. They can
give you all the facts on that.
If in deep-well injection the water is lost forever,
then what the heck have we been talking about and all the different
agencies throughout this county? Because water is going to be a big
thing. The Big Cypress Basin board, South Florida Water Management,
the Department of Environmental Protection. At the past meeting on
the 18th of this month, that's all they talked about is water in the
Belle Heade, Southern Estates area. Okay. Rookery Bay, big time.
Where are these environmentalists? How about you stand up and be
accountable on this?
Now, I'm going to use some words because the commission
in the past has been stroked for profit.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A1, you've got about one minute
to --
MR. PERKINS: Okay. And because of that, you need to
pay attention and find out for yourself. There's a lot of people out
there that's willing to provide you information. There's a lot of
people provide you information that they do not make a profit on.
It's out there for you to get.
The experts in the past have screwed up the environment
and a lot of other things in the past as they walk away with the
bucks. With that, I will quit, give it up. And, as I said before, I
welcome the two new commissioners into this nightmare. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That concludes our public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I think you
had a couple of questions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. You answered, for the most
part, my questions on residential or commercial irrigation. We can
almost do something like a prescription service. What I heard is to
get rid of about a million gallons, we're looking at an expenditure of
three to five million. So for the nine, ten, or 11 million we're
going to spend or could spend for deep-well injection, we're looking
at possibly getting rid of two to three million gallons per day
through residential and commercial irrigation?
MR. TAYLOR: Yes. What's been experienced in the past
is your residential customers that you do have which are primarily
located in the north county in Pelican Bay, they're a much more
reliable customer than the golf courses. They don't go out and turn
off their sprinklers because it rained the afternoon before --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We all have timers --
MR. TAYLOR: Golf courses do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- And we ignore them. Yes.
MR. TAYLOR: But, again, I did want to point out one
item. I didn't get to the apples and oranges comparison. For those
kinds of dollars that we were talking about, we can I think reasonably
anticipate getting rid of two to three million gallons per day. The
alternative of that expense as associated with the deep well though is
to be able to discharge 15 million gallons per day of disposal and
having adequate backup for that. So you don't have an equal volume of
disposal with equal dollars spent.
I would like to say that -- just to clarify this, we
don't have a biased opinion on which direction not to go. We are very
much in favor of water conservation, groundwater recharge and the
like. We do feel though that we have to give the utilities operations
a reasonable and a reliable tool for effluent disposal when they don't
have the ability to get rid of it, and I think that's really the
responsibility that the commission has in deciding which direction to
go. So we just want them to have an adequate tool. When it's
raining, they've got someplace to put it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Taylor, you mentioned or Kirk
mentioned Pinellas and Brevard County have had failures with these.
They then had to close and plug those; is that correct?
MR. HARTIN: Brevard County had to plug their well.
Pinellas County is trying to work on a -- through the DEP some
alternative and still use their wells in a different manner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are those the only two failures
that have happened?
MR. MARTIN: There are a few on the southeast coast that
occurred from wells that were drilled in the thousand-foot range, old
wells that were drilled 20, 30 years ago. Those are plugged. They
were not drilled according to today's standards or any other manner so
-- They also have been a couple on the east coast, shallow wells, not
done to the deep zone.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When you say "a couple," do you
mean two?
MR. MARTIN: I'm going to say two to three. I don't
know how many exactly but somewhere in that ballpark. It's very few,
a handful.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What is the cost? I think, as
Mr. Erlichman pointed out, there would be a cost associated with --
MR. MARTIN: It's about --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Closing and plugging.
MR. MARTIN: -- $350,000 for plugging. I might point
out that there is a fiscal responsibility clause for injectionable
permit, but it's the same process you would have to go if your perc
ponds failed. The county is still responsible for creating more perc
ponds. So it's the same fiscal responsibility. In this case, you
just have to sign a form saying, "We will pay for it."
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just two questions. One, could
you -- you had shared some information with me in my office yesterday
on your professional opinion about the difference between the geology
of our area and the geology of the areas that have experienced
failures. That was quite persuasive. That's one question.
And the other one too just for the purposes of being
able to adequately judge people's opinions, I had asked you yesterday,
Mr. Taylor, where Hole, Montes stands to make the most money, and I
understood that Hole, Montes makes the most money with perc ponds and
not with deep-well injections; am I right?
MR. TAYLOR: That's -- That's correct. The hundred
geologists makes the majority of the money on the deep well, and
that's not me. So percolation ponds is probably -- if you want to get
into the monetary aspects, there's a lot more fee related to that for
Hole, Montes than the other alternative.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's an important point
for judging whose opinion we're listening to. But if you could tell
me like you did yesterday about the geology differences in the areas
where there have been failures as opposed to Collier County.
MR. MARTIN: Two things. One is the depth we're talking
about. In Collier County, we're talking 3,000 feet with confining
beds -- over 2,000 feet of confining beds overlying that. And in
Pinellas County, we're talking an injection zone of 500 feet with only
maybe 100 feet of confinement between that and drinking water
supplies.
The second issue is permeability, that being how well
the aquifer takes the water. In Collier County, we're talking a
cavernous zone. We're talking caverns the size of cars and trucks,
big holes in the rock. In Pinellas County, we're talking maybe
fist-size holes or smaller. It's a different type of matrix rock. In
Collier County, there's very -- there's no impediment to this aquifer
receiving that water.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think
we've heard a lot of the pros and cons of all the different options
that we have. To me it still seems that the most responsible method
of proceeding, especially from an environmental standpoint, is to
aggressively pursue our tense expansions when possible and to also
pursue perc pond options, and I'll put that in the form of a motion
that we direct our staff to pursue those two options.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Could you repeat that just one
more time for me, please?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. My motion is to direct our
staff to pursue two options, one being tense when possible and --
maybe a clarification. I don't mean that we should at this point
pursue mandatory retrofits in our tense system, but to new development
coming on line certainly we should aggressively pursue tense, and the
other option is to pursue perc ponds.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for Mr. HcNees.
We've been talking about seven and six and $9 million expenditures
today which would obviously come out of your budget. Is this money on
top of what is currently budgeted? That's money we're going to have
to create, or is it money already set aside for this type of project?
MR. HCNEES: Honey for what we're asking for today which
is the consulting work is already budgeted. The actual expenditure of
construction we would come back to you to fund that in the future.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A question for you also, Mr.
HcNees. I couldn't agree more with what Commissioner Norris is saying
about tense being definitely the way to go, and that's what we need to
be -- that needs to be our goal. There's no question about that. My
concern from our conversations before is that we have almost an
emergency situation here. Help me understand. If we -- If we reject
the deep-well system, will we find ourselves in an emergency
situation, or is it possible that we can solve our emergency problem
with tense alternatives?
MR. HCNEES: I don't think it's practical that we would
solve our current existing saturation problem, I'll call it, with
tense. That's -- I think it has been and continues to be as I see the
commission's position which then becomes the staff position, that
tense is the first option. We continue to aggressively pursue tense
wherever we can. We have two new courses we're talking to just in the
last couple of weeks who we're trying to get tense to. So we agree
and you've told us consistently that's your first option, and we
haven't deviated from that. I don't believe tense is in any way
either a short-term or a long-term solution to the total problem.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion without a
second. I'll tell you, my thought on this is we apparently have at
least two people who are adamantly opposed to this, but I'd feel much
more comfortable if -- I know at least a couple of us have made
contact with other commissioners around the state with some regularity
and I'd feel comfortable -- more comfortable making a final decision
or giving a final direction to our staff after having been able to
talk to not only -- I've got some friends up in Pinellas and in
Brevard but also those were -- this has some level of success, also
talking to some of the folks at DEP on the environmental side of this.
It is rare that they are not taking the most extreme safety point. So
I'm not sure why they would be ignoring this if it were the case, but
I share many of the concerns Commissioner Matthews and Norris have
indicated as far as I don't want something to happen 20 years down the
road and, thank heavens, we could have prevented that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We did it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for that clarification.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I wonder if there might be
interest in the board in at least waiting, and I don't think this will
throw us too far off -- Mr. McNees, you tell me if it will -- but
waiting at least a couple of weeks so we have an opportunity to talk
with some of our colleagues in neighboring counties.
MR. MCNEES: Well, I guess I'd have to say that a couple
of weeks one way or the other, no, probably isn't critical, but as
long as we can continue to move forward, we have a -- There are two
issues. One, we are currently negotiating with the Department of
Environmental Protection regarding our current condition or regarding
our current problem with the capacity of our percolation ponds. They
are anxiously awaiting a letter from our wastewater director to find
out what you do here today. And if -- you know, if we're continuing
to progress towards a solution, we may be able to continue to talk to
them and make them understand where you're headed, that you want a
little bit more information. They may want to come to speak to you.
Because what we believe and what the consultants and your staff
believes is the science of this -- and I know there's a lot of concern
about safety -- but the science of this is clear as far as the
preferred option.
And the other thing I'd like to add, a couple weeks
probably won't make a difference, but in terms of long-term master
planning, the original master plan which developed your wastewater
system on the south end of the county did include this deep well as
part of the long-term solution. So this isn't something that we've
thrown at you. So that two weeks I guess I'd say probably won't make
a difference if we can continue to move forward and feel like we're
going to get some progress.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think your idea to make DEP a
part of that discussion during the next two weeks will be very
beneficial. Apparently the motion that's on the floor will die. I'll
go ahead and make a motion that we continue the item for two weeks to
give us an opportunity for that discussion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a comment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to second the motion
if Mr. Norris would include in his original motion that staff find a
way to do a study because I like the idea of reuse, and I like the
idea of the residential reuse program. And I know we keep saying
right now that it's too expensive, that it's very expensive, but I
can't help but feel that Southwest Florida and Collier County is going
to get to a point at some time when it's not going to be expensive
comparatively to what the options will be and that's the lack of
water, period.
This gray water, if we upgrade it, use it for irrigation
purposes, will find its way back into the aquifer, will become our
potable water, the water that we drink, and we can perpetuate our own
water supply eventually, and I think I would like some comparative
numbers on present value of the dollars versus future dollars of the
future value of the cost of providing potable water when we could
recycle our own water, and I think I'd like that --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The motion on the floor --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Concluded.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Right now is to continue the
item for two weeks. Mr. HcNees, could you put that information
together in a two-week span?
MR. HCNEES: As far as the tense information, two things
I'll say. Yes, we can. And you don't need to direct us to continue
to develop the residential aspects of tense because that's already a
part of the program and that's something you're going to talk about
next week in your strategic plan when you asked us to bring you a
water conservation plan, what rules do you want to adopt for new
construction and residential tense.
In terms of retrofits, I think that information is
probably -- in fact, we're often accused of reinventing the wheel.
Hole, Hontes recently did a very similar study for the City of Naples,
and that's where Mr. Taylor is getting his numbers. A neighborhood is
a neighborhood whether it's in the city or whether it's in the county,
and a lot of those numbers we can probably -- if you want to look at
them, they're quick, they're cheap, and they're available in terms of
retrofit and what that cost -- I think you got a flavor for that
today.
But on the second half in terms of the DEP and whether
we can get some information from them to you, if you want, we can
probably have a representative from there or at least we can invite
someone from there to come to that meeting in two weeks. If you'd
prefer to meet with them privately beforehand, I can't speak for them,
what they're available to do, but we'll sure try.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think traditionally if a member
of the commission has asked for a continuation for some reason with
some substance to it -- and I hope that my request has some substance,
that we want to get some information and talk to some of the people
who are actually doing the various things right now -- that the board
has traditionally honored that request. I hope that we'll get a
second for the motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem
delaying this for two more weeks. I just -- I just think there are a
lot of long-range options that fit in with the strategic planning that
we've been doing, and I want to start looking at long-range solutions.
I'm talking 30, 40 years, not three or four years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, Commissioner Matthews.
It will also give us two more weeks to look at the residential options
and maybe come up with some numbers on those as part of an overall
plan.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
weeks at all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
So I have no -- I'm not adverse to a continuance.
I've got no problem with two
Is there a second to the motion?
I'll second the motion.
I'll second it.
All those in favor of the motion
to continue the item for two weeks -- And, Mr. McNees, you'll try to
pull together those numbers as part of that as well -- state aye.
Anyone opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-1. We'll take a
break. This one may be more than our usual ten minutes. If the board
can stay here, we need to have our group photos done today, and our
public affairs office will be here momentarily. We'll be -- We'll
reconvene in about 20 minutes.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8H4
RESOLUTION 94-816 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO COLONY
CABLEVISION OF FLORIDA AND RESOLUTION 94-817 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF AN
ORDER TO CABLEVISION INDUSTRIES REGARDING REGULATION OF RATES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item, H4, request for
authorization to issue an order to Colony Cablevision of Florida and
Cablevision Industries.
MS. EDWARDS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MS. EDWARDS: For the record, my name is Jennifer
Edwards. This item is merely a formality in our rate regulation
process. Can you hear me? We are currently reviewing the forms that
justify the rates that the cable operators are charging, and we have a
time frame in which to do that review. And if for some reason we
should go beyond that time frame in our review, we need to issue these
orders that are before you today which will preserve our right to
order a refund or to reduce the rates. Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions for Ms. Edwards?
Any speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion
state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 3-0. Commissioner
Matthews, Commissioner Hac'Kie not in attendance.
Item #8H5
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 8 FOR PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING AND
HAPPING SERVICES RELATED TO THE DESIGN OF AN OFF-SITE MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE CR 951 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - APPROVED
8H(5), approve land surveying. That's for the
four-laning of 951, Davis. You got me excited already just talking
about it.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. We --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Identify yourself for the record.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode for
Capital Projects Office. And this item is just to request an
additional authority to spend $2,000 for some survey work that was
associated with the combined CIA number ten and number 11.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's to keep it on schedule for
-- it's due about two years from now for that construction work?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, we are in the process of preparing
a report to the board to consider advancing that if they'd like to.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great.
MR. CONRECODE: We are scheduled to go before the Water
Management District at their December meeting for the permit for the
approval of the mitigation area, and we need a survey to do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The more you talk, the more I
like this. Any speakers on this item?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Questions for staff?
Motion to approve.
This is 8H(5).
Second.
Motion and a second.
those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
Hotion carries 4-0.
Is there a
All in
All those opposed?
Commissioner Matthews not in attendance.
Item #9A
AUTHORIZATION TO ENGAGE THE CARLTON, FIELDS LAW FIRM FOR FURTHER
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS REGADING THE TOURIST TAX CASE - APPROVED
And we move on to the county attorney's report.
Discussion regarding the current status of the tourist tax case and
request for authorization to engage.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an item the
new commissioners are very familiar with through the newspaper
articles. We have been successful at the Second District Court of
Appeals, and the Florida Supreme Court has declined jurisdiction of
the case. I have been informed in writing by the plaintiff's counsel
that they intend to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. We have --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill -- Excuse me just a
minute. Mr. Dotrill, maybe it's necessary, but is there any chance we
can get that pounding stopped during the meeting?
MR. DORRILL: I just winked at Mr. Clark who's probably
telling that non-republican to quit hammering so we can --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Cite him for a hammer not in
compliance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't insult him that way. We
don't know.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, Mr. Cuyler. Please
continue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's hard to hear you.
MR. CUYLER: As I indicated, plaintiff's counsel have
informed us in writing they intend to appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court. We have not seen a brief, but we need to be prepared for that.
We have -- We have used Carlton, Fields, been very successful with
them. They have given us an estimate of ten to $20,000 for the
jurisdictional brief. I expect that to be at the low end. They
obviously wanted to give us a figure they could live with. I expect
it to be closer to the $10,000 range. As you know, Mr. Chairman,
Tourist Development Council considered this item, unanimously
recommended that we go forward with this. It's my recommendation that
we go forward with this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A couple of quick questions for
you.
MR. CUYLER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Carlton, Fields is the group that
got us to the point we are now where it appears, for the time being
anyway, we're on the winning side of the issue? MR. CUYLER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that correct?
MR. CUYLER: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Also, the total amount available
if we win is somewhere in the balipark of $6 million? MR. CUYLER: Just under $6 million.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And so the $10,000 expenditure
one could say pales in comparison?
MR. CUYLER: That would be my position. The monies
would also be budgeted in the county attorney's budget, or it would be
paid through the self-insurance fund.
yet.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
We haven't figured out which
Do we have speakers on this item?
Questions for our staff?
I have a question.
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
I'm sorry. Hr. Cuyler just --
having just done a jurisdictional appeal and won it, is the $10,000
estimate even -- is that reasonable considering that we are doing a
jurisdictional appeal? I understand to a different court, so maybe
that's what -- But is the research going to be substantial so that a
$10,000 fee is justified?
MR. CUYLER: I think that -- Let me put it this way.
I've had that conversation with counsel. They've indicated to me the
issues are obviously substantially the same. It may be a little
different work. They are very cognizant of not spending money if they
don't have to. I've had that conversation with them. They also
understand that the perception will be as you just indicated. We're
doing the same thing again. They have indicated to me they will keep
costs down to the extent that they can. And the $10,000 is not a
guarantee. They're on a per-hour basis. I'll review their work and
I'll determine whether it's reasonable or not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we do get their hourly
reports and --
MR. CUYLER: Breakdown. Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a motion? Is there a
second? Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none,
all those in favor of the motion, please state aye. Anyone opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, when should we expect
a resolution to this?
MR. CUYLER: If the U.S. Supreme Court declines
jurisdiction, we hope to have an answer by Hatch or April 1995, and at
that point appeals will be exhausted.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I assume if the Supreme Court
declines jurisdiction, there are no more doors readily available for
MR. CUYLER: That's the last place they've got to go.
Item #10A
EXTRA GAIN TIHE FOR INMATE NO. 46326 - DENIED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That moves us on to 10A, extra
gain time. I have a question for our sheriff's representative. These
little letters here, DWLSR, stand for?
SHERIFF CANADY: Driving while license suspended or
revoked.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which apparently was a violation
of his county probation?
SHERIFF CANADY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would -- I don't -- Pardon me,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would just be useful for those
of us who don't know DWLSR, you know, for those to be explained.
Actually, my brother's a deputy sheriff so I asked him what it meant
and he told me, but, otherwise, I wouldn't have known. It would be
useful.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Quite frankly, I don't see what
use giving extra gain time to somebody who violates the law, violated
probation and he -- his probation that was as a result of driving
without a license -- I don't see what the purpose of extra gain time
is going to do. It's supposed to be for good behavior and --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Get him back on the streets.
So he can do it again.
I'll entertain a motion to deny.
Motion to deny.
Second.
There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion
state aye. Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10B
STATUS REPORT ON THE CODE ENFORCEHENT BOARD PRESENTED TO THE BCC BY
VICE CHAIRMAN ALLEN OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Item 10B, status report to the BCC by Code Enforcement
Board, vice chair. Sorry we adjourned so quickly last week. I
understand you came in about ten o'clock and, lo and behold, we had
disappeared.
MR. ALLEN: That's correct, sir. Good morning,
Commissioners. My name is Jim Allen. I'm the COMMISSIONER of the
Collier County Code Enforcement Board. I'd like to read a quick
status report. Authorization for the Code Enforcement Board provided
by Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes and by the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a minute. Can you
just pull that down a little bit? Thank you.
MR. ALLEN: I can't get any taller -- and by the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board Ordinance 92-80. Collier County Code
Enforcement Board is a quasi-judicial authority with the authority to
impose fines of up to $500 per day per violation. The Code
Enforcement Department conducts an investigation and presents evidence
of continuing violations where a respondent has failed to remove any
violations.
The Code Enforcement Board was empowered in 1989 and to
date has processed over 121 cases. Several of these cases became
quite high profile and have withstood appellate review.
The Code Enforcement Department consistently conducts
their investigations and presents competent evidence to be weighed by
the Code Enforcement Boards and/or the courts. Each case brought
before the Code Enforcement Board has subsequently resulted into
compliance. One of the more recent cases resulted in substantial
fines in excess of $60,000 which was from a failure by an area
developer to complete the amenities required by Collier County.
The efforts of the Code Enforcement Board have resulted
in a removal of substantial number of violations and have provided an
efficient method to assist a commission in providing a quality
community in which to live and work.
I'd like to add that the commission chairman, Mr.
Constantine, previously served as the chairman of the Code Enforcement
Board. He left us a great example to follow. If you have any
questions, myself and Mr. Clark would be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions on the service of the
Code Enforcement Board?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, the commission and you
specifically asked as a result of the recent presentation by the Parks
and Recreation Board, the board expressed a desire and a willingness
to receive periodic reports and substantial work activity of all of
your advisory boards. So from time to time, we will be allowing the
chairman of one of your advisory boards just to tell you what it is
they're doing and what current event topics are important from their
perspective and to allow you to ask questions that you may be
interested in. It's otherwise an information line.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I want to compliment both the
Code Enforcement Board and the Code Enforcement staff. They make it
possible. They are the bite in our ordinances. Prior to this, it was
awful difficult to enforce a lot of things. I think one of the
glaring examples this past year, one of the great examples making
something happen was the Embassy Woods situation. You had homeowners
over there who had a pile of rubble out front instead of a clubhouse,
and through the Code Enforcement Department and through the actions of
the board, they now have a full clubhouse built and can use that, and
I understand the restaurant portion of that is opening December 1. So
thank you guys for a job well done.
MR. ALLEN: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #10C
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT LETTER TO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION THAT NOTICE AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS BE REQUIRED FOR ISSUANCE
OF A PERMIT AND HAT NO FURTHER REQUESTS BE MADE TO PETITION AN
EXTENSION OF THE SUBMERGED LAN LEASE IN THE WIGGINS PASS BASIN AND THE
COCOHATCHEE RIVER
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 10C, resolution. This is
Commissioner Matthews' item. DEP permit, Wiggins Pass.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. I added this to the agenda
today because the permit coming from the DEP seems to be at this point
imminent. I became involved in this about a week ago in the interim
between the commissioner leaving for district two and the commissioner
coming to district two, so I've kind of had to pick it up and run with
it, but I'll fill you in on a little bit of background of what is
going on.
There are seawalls and slips that were permitted and
built in '79 and '80. There is a current permit application before
the DEP to keep the same 190 wet slips but to reconfigure them, some
say to allow wider boats, some say to allow longer boats. I
understand that the current piers, finger piers, are very short and
that the permit application will allow those permit piers to be
extended to a greater length. They will also allow mooring pilings
near the extent of the submerged land lease which will permit the
mooring of the stern of a boat. That's roughly 45 feet from the
docking area. So it is totally possible now that we're looking at
45-foot boats on a regular basis.
The thing that bothered me the most though about the
proposed permit is the five-foot design draft for the docking area.
And for the benefit of the two new county commissioners -- thank God
we're old now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We were labeled that for two
years so get used to it. They'll just continue to call you that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No problem.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Collier County recently adopted
a manatee protection plan which has some pretty significant
requirements for new marinas. The original design of this area is
pretty much a dock that was designed for the private use of the condo
owners in the original design. What's being proposed now is that
these docks would be leased to other than the condo owners and will be
eventually sold, but that's neither here nor there.
The problem, in my mind, is the five-foot design draft.
Our inlet management plan which we have not yet adopted -- It's coming
to us in January. We've worked on it for more than five years. We
have a couple hundred thousand dollars invested in it -- calls for a
three-foot design draft.
And I'm, frankly, concerned that we'll have a situation
here in this board room in three or four years of the condo owners and
the lease holders for the slips being in this board, similar to the
Lely Barefoot problem today, demanding that we amend our inlet
management plan for design draft of five feet which is going to be
considerably more expensive than what we're talking about doing, and
it is the taxpayers of Collier County who will bear that burden.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, have you
seen the permit application that's gone to DEP?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I have not seen the permit
application itself. I've talked with Mr. Kraft at the DEP on three
different occasions now, and he has told me what the permit
application will permit. Their thought process according to him for
allowing or for issuing the permit is to get some sort of draft
limitation at all, and it's my consideration that the inlet management
plan will limit that draft. The very configuration of the basin and
the channels in the pass itself call for a design limitation of three
feet. Now, that doesn't mean a five-foot draft boat or four-foot draft
boat isn't going to be able to access the pass. What it means is that
on a clear day when there's no swells, that ordinarily a three-foot
draft boat will be able to access the pass and the channels. Most of
the time there's six feet of water anyway. And my concern is that in
three or four years this board, whoever is sitting here, is going to
be asked to redesign the whole thing for a design draft of five feet
which is going to be very expensive.
The resolution that I've put together goes through a lot
of wheteases, including our manatee protection plan and the Army Corp
of -- Army Corp of Engineers sanctioning of a three-foot draft plus or
minus, in the early '80s, the impending inlet management plan, the
boater safety issues that we will be required to address if we -- if
we have a design draft that's greater than the inlet management plan
allows, the -- the resolution says that we are opposed to any design
draft greater than three feet and that -- that at the end if the
Department of Environmental Protection is compelled to issue this
permit, that we have a noticing of the petitioner on its heirs,
assigns, and survivors, that, quote, "No grounding or other mishap of
a boat which draws over three to three and a half feet will be any
cause for the county to consider dredging Wiggins Pass, any of its
channels, or amending its inlet management plan to allow for a design
draft of greater than three feet plus or minus."
In addition to that, I'm asking that as a further
condition of the permit, that the ability of the petitioner, its
heirs, assigns, or survivors to file a petition for an extension of
their submerged land lease not be allowed to any greater extent than
currently exists as of this day.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand your concerns, and
the reason I asked the question if you'd seen the permit application
is I haven't seen it either. I'm not familiar with it. Frankly, this
is the first I've heard of the item. It is an add-on item. The first
I've heard in any detail on the item. I'm not comfortable passing a
resolution on something that I'm not educated on at all. I would
prefer to be able to have more background, have some understanding,
and I'm not sure I'm going to be comfortable passing a resolution, and
I'm not sure that it's our place without a better education -- I know
-- I'm not going to go so far as to say it's not our place to make
suggestions to state agencies. Goodness knows, we certainly take that
opportunity from time to time. But without knowing more about it, I'm
not going to be able to support a resolution. I would, however, with
the comments you have made, particularly there at the end, be willing
to support a letter, not in a resolution form, but a letter asking for
-- that wording be put in any documents dealing with these so that
there would be some clearness to anyone buying in there.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: The problem, Mr. Chairman, of
your not having ample information on this is a result of the Sunshine
law. We're not allowed to discuss these issues prior to the coming to
this board for open discussion. Other than that, I certainly would
have made the board fully informed of all that was going on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That was not intended as a
criticism of you by any means.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I realize that. And there are
many times where emergency items where we have to get a quick
education and become relatively a, quote, unquote, "quick study." And
I've been working with this issue also for just over ten days, and
I've gotten deeply involved in it. And I'm very, very concerned that
the DEP is going to issue this permit for a design draft of five feet,
and that if we don't have some constraints placed on this permit, that
we will have another Lely Barefoot Beach every six-month petition to
do something within three years.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is an item that over the
last six months I've dealt with and had a considerable amount of
information offered to me from the Wiggins Pass Conservancy, the
residents of Vanderbilt Beach, and I have always seen the inlet
management plan as our greatest tool of setting the design depth based
on technical information and environmental data. And I have said
throughout the last few months that that plan will govern again based
on those two things, the technical data and the environmental impact
of what the dredging and maintenance dredging can and will do. And a
lot of people worked a tremendous number of hours to get us to this
point, and at that point I've been wrestling a little bit with the
same question you have. And that is, if the state says you're allowed
a five-foot draft and our inlet management plan says three, is the
taxpayer going to lose out in a few years when a five-foot draft boat
breaches in the channel.
And from what I have seen -- Is there anyone here from
Westinghouse Communities today? Okay. From what I've seen in the
papers recently and so forth, they understand what our inlet
management plan is and what it's intended to do, and we may have at
that time the option to send correspondence to Westinghouse
Communities advising them exactly of what we feel that relationship
is, and the county should not be held responsible and will not be held
responsible for marketing actions that go in the face of what the
inlet management plan is. I see that as a valid concern.
I'm a little concerned that we're putting the cart
before the horse here because I haven't even seen the inlet management
plan. This says that it says three foot, but I haven't seen the
technical backup and the data to give me that information, that
assurance that -- In essence, I feel like I'm adopting the plan before
I've seen it, and it's a procedural concern and not one of intent.
And I guess I'm -- I, likewise, and maybe for a different reason
uncomfortable. I'm more than willing to make the step to the
Vanderbilt Beach property owners and to Wiggins Pass that I agree with
what -- the technical/environmental data that I have heard. I agree
with that, but I just haven't seen it. And without being able to
review it, I have a little difficulty there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have not seen the inlet
management plan either. I've seen a few pages of it pertaining to the
design draft of three feet plus or minus. My concern is this. In my
discussion with Mr. Kraft at the DEP, when I explained to him that the
inlet management plan that was coming to us, I believe, in January
calls for a design draft of three feet plus or minus, I was told quite
abruptly that that's not in effect right now; and, therefore, we don't
have to obey it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for the attorney.
What is the legal effect of not -- of adopting the inlet management
plan after DEP has issued a permit that allows a greater depth, and is
it possible to impose some kind of notice of its impending adoption so
that maybe we could avoid these -- the problems that Commissioner
Matthews is concerned about?
MR. CUYLER: I think with regard to your latter point of
publishing or putting people on notice of the plan, certainly from the
marketing point of view anybody that goes in and understands that
document is on the way and markets to bring people in that are going
to have vessels at a greater depth than the inlet management plan,
obviously they're at their own risk.
With regard to the legal significance of the document
precluding marketers and developers from being able to do that, I'd
want to take a look at that, but I don't believe you would be able to
say the inlet management plan says three foot, you can't sell a slip
that's going to allow a four foot or a five foot.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that even after we've adopted
the inlet management plan, there's nothing that could -- nothing that
we could do to prevent a developer from marketing a five-foot draft
boat. Is that what you're saying?
MR. CUYLER: After their permits have already been
issued?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my question, yes.
MR. CUYLER: I think you would have a problem. I think
the inlet management plan gives you the ability to enter any
permitting process and say this is the plan. We don't -- and to give
you a good position to argue either to a state agency or whatever, you
know, this is what we have agreed on as a community, this is what
we've studied, this is really the best with regard to the environment,
and the other community considerations don't allow anything beyond
inlet management plan once they have issued permits. And, again, I'd
like to take a closer look at this. I haven't gotten into this at
all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, realistically though
we don't have the ability to limit what they market, whether it's
before permits or after permits, do we?
MR. CUYLER: You have the ability to get into the permit
process and have conditions placed on the permit, but, no, not really
with regard to marketing unless it is a condition of the permit.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And would it be appropriate -- I
seem to recall a lot of cases that when there is a pending zoning
change that you can't rely on the existing zoning, that perhaps it
would be appropriate for us to send a notice to DEP that there is, in
fact, this change pending so that that is somehow incorporated into
their decision.
MR. CUYLER: You could certainly do that, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand what Commissioner
Matthews is trying to accomplish, and I'm certainly sympathetic to
reaching the same goal that she is. I'm not sure the resolution is
the proper way to do it though.
Mr. Cuyler, could we have some mechanism whereby we can
be certain that any property owner -- or excuse me -- any prospective
buyer of the property in the particular complex would be notified that
the inlet management plan says whatever it's going to say as we don't
have it yet. Do we have a method of notification?
MR. CUYLER: There's basically two ways that you
normally would accomplish that. One is to either require it through
the land use approvals, and I'm not sure whether all of the land use
approvals are over with regard to that area. But the second way would
be you could always put it into the official records, and then as part
of title examination and conditions on an area, it would at least get
picked up, and there would at least be notice of it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: By the title companies?
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And if we included in there
a notice to the developer that the inlet management plan after we --
after we approved the inlet management plan that the inlet management
plan says such and such, whatever it may be, three feet or whatever it
may be, and we could send the developer a notice of that and put that
notice in the public record. Is that what you're saying, something to
that effect?
MR. CUYLER: Correct. And I think that you can always
put the developer on notice. I know Commissioner Matthews' concern
with regard to the Lely Barefoot Beach situation where every six
months you hear the same thing over and over again. But to protect
yourself as best you can, yes, send it to the developer and say what
we understand, your intent is inconsistent with what we've determined
to be the appropriate depths. Please -- you know, please comply. But
with regard to a hammer, you don't really have a hammer.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At this point, I'm like the other
board members. I don't know if the inlet management plan is going to
say three feet, five feet, ten feet, or 200 feet so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think 200 feet is fairly --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably not going to say 200. But
I would rather wait and see on that, but I think we should abide by
the inlet management plan, assuming that the board passes the inlet
management plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have three public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, we do. The first will be Mr.
Harvey, Paul Harvey, followed by Ms. Haggio, if I could have you stand
by, please.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. HARVEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Paul Harvey. I was on the advisory council for the inlet management
plan. I'm on the board of directors of the Wiggins Pass Conservancy.
I'm a fishing guide and have been for 16 years in the Wiggins Pass
area, and I also run a marina business in that area.
The scope of the project that you're being asked or that
they're looking at now to change from the three-foot draft to a
five-foot depth limit around the docks kind of -- it leaves it open to
if you give them a permit that says you can have an eight-foot draft
in the pass and you now give them a permit that says you can have five
foot of depth at the moorings, it's kind of obvious that eventually
you're going to ask to have the channel from the project to the pass
be dredged to allow boats with five-foot drafts to move in and out.
At this point they can't. They're constrained by nature. If they
stick with the original permitting that has the docks in place -- and,
by the way, this was never a marina. I think the original permitting
was done to facilitate docks for condominiums.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a minute. Mr.
Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: He's a better man than I am.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I call response.
MR. HARVEY: But it just seems like a natural
progression. We've got the pass at a certain depth. Now you're going
to have a certain depth at these docks. People are naturally going to
believe that if they bought a big boat that draws five feet of water
and they can keep it at Pelican Isle Yacht Club, then naturally they
should be able to traverse from Pelican Isle Yacht Club through
Wiggins Pass which is dredged at eight feet with no problems.
There's a number of problems. Number one, the water is
not deep enough. Number two, there's also a situation called the
choke point which is a mangrove island that is halfway between the
project and the pass. This is a very narrow area. It's about 100 feet
wide, but with water depth it's about 35 feet wide.
I have three 40-foot boats, and we have the largest
fishing business in north Naples. Some of my boats hold 70
passengers. We designed each boat to operate in water with a draft of
less than three feet because of these constraints. We go to the
Wiggins Bay Club a lot and deliver people, and we run a daily
sightseeing tour up through this whole area all the way as far back as
Lely Barefoot Beach.
But there's just no way that you're going to get -- I
also run some big yachts. There's no way that you're going to get
those in there without taking out oyster bars, without taking out
mangroves, and it's going to become a boater's safety issue which I
think the pass was also, and that's why it was dredged.
If you have two boats coming in and they collide in a
certain area, they're going to be going back to DEP saying, Wait a
minute. This isn't wide enough. It's not deep enough, but you gave
us these two other permits; therefore, we should have the permit for
the middle.
At that point in time, what's going to happen is, is
Collier County, the residents, myself included because I live on the
water there, are going to be paying more in taxes to dredge this whole
system out regardless of the environmental problems it's going to
create, and now we're going to have the burden of the $300,000 a year
which I think comes out of TDC now for the dredging, but we're also
going to have this other dredging that's going to have to take place
to maintain this big channel for big boats.
And on top of that, you've got a park that the county
just built and completed that is kind of being hidden by their
landscaping right now that looked to me like about 100-something boats
and trailers of small boats probably 20 to 25 foot are going to use on
a daily basis that park. The boat ramp has been full since the day it
was opened. You've got Wiggins Pass Marina next door which, I
believe, houses 500 boats and their barns which are all fairly small
boats, and you have all the boats coming from Bonita and Vanderbilt
trying to traverse this very narrow waterway with a lot of very large
boats, more than 190 because there's more slips at Marina Bay Club
across the way that I think they're held up in permitting right now.
But as soon as this comes through, then I believe that they'll be
going after their permits to dredge out their little area so they can
get bigger boats in.
I understand it's a matter of economics. The bigger the
boat, the more money you're going to make, but this area is just too
small. This is like putting Sabal Bay in Naples. This is almost the
same in the sense that this is a very large project going into a very
small estuarine bay situation. That's all I've got to say. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of
additional speakers, but we'll have Ms. Nichols-Lucy following Ms.
Haggio.
MS. HAGGIO: For the record, Emily Haggio. I live in
Little Hickory Shores, have lived there for 25 years, and I must tell
you I'm a non-republic, and I assure all of you I will never stop
hammering. Sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Took a minute but I got it.
MS. HAGGIO: You got it. Okay. I'm here today in
support of the resolution or at least the spirit of the resolution if
it doesn't happen to end up as a resolution. Water is more than a
medium in which to float a boat, and our estuaries and waterways and
passes belong to everyone. They are natural resources. They do not
belong exclusively to boaters or to shore-front property owners who
really have no more rights to these resources than the rest of us.
I was opposed to the dredging of Wiggins Pass when it
was proposed because -- and I hate to say I told you so -- you dredged
the pass. That leads to other dredging. It leads to more demands
because people want more, more, more. You're going to end up not just
dredging Wiggins Pass and to Pelican Isle or the marina. You're going
to end up between my home in Little Hickory Shores and Wiggins Pass.
There are some places that are 18 inches of water. You get these
people in with big boats. Don't you think there are a few in my
neighborhood that are going to want it too, and then what have you
opened up?
I looked and I tried to find the page from the growth
management coastal management element of the growth management plan.
I couldn't lay my hand on it, but I can almost quote it. It said in
there that the boat-owning population of Collier County is 10 percent
of the total population. It has been that historically. And it says
in this paragraph of the growth management plan, they expect it to
remain at 10 percent through the year 2010, something like that.
10 percent of the entire county population. A percent less than that
we are talking about here using Wiggins Pass to go to Pelican Isle,
Island Marina, the few that are there.
So what you're going to end up with is 99 44/100 percent
of the taxpayers paying for something that's going to benefit two,
maybe three developers and a veritable handful of people who want to
put a big boat where a big boat doesn't belong.
Every time you dredge the pass and if you're going to
have to dredge it deeper and deeper for bigger boats, you erode the
beaches. That is a given. Engineer will tell you. You dredge a
pass. You erode the beach. You nourish the beach. You fill a pass.
That's proximal. That's the way it works. Every time you dredge the
pass, more of the beach falls in. The pass gets wider and wider. The
velocity of the water is slowed down, and it is a self-perpetuating
project. It just -- It's never ending.
So we've got $15 million now in beach renourishment we
don't know how we're going to pay for. Will someone please tell me
what is the justification for adding to that, for destroying public
property? These resources, the estuaries, the waterways are public
property. What is the overwhelming need to do that? And I ask you to
please consider doing something with the draft limit because this is
only the tip of the iceberg. More will follow. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Nichols-Lucy, and following her is Mr.
Stallings.
MS. NICHOLS-LUCY: Good morning. My name is Susan
Nichols-Lucy, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Conservancy, and I'd
like to urge you to consider this resolution. Our primary concern at
the Conservancy is the potential for dredging which may result as a
result of this permit.
We understand very clearly that the request for the
permit by Eco Group does not directly request dredging of the Wiggins
Pass inlet; however, we're very concerned that in sometime in the
future boaters may demand Collier County a dredging schedule which
includes a deeper control depth in order to accommodate the larger
boats in and around Conklin Point. These requests could be based upon
public safety concerns.
Since there's a potential for these boaters to claim
ignorance of any navigational problems in the inlet or near the choke
point, we suggest in some manner that Eco Group be required to make
notification of the three-foot navigation control depth in any sales,
leases, or covenants regarding the operation of boat slips at that
marina.
We would very much prefer to see slip depths restricted
to the three-feet depths as stipulated in the original DEP intent to
issue. This would ensure that the three-foot control depth as
recommended in the Wiggins Pass inlet management plan as recommended
by the Corp of Engineers and as proposed by the Wiggins Pass OFW
nomination be maintained.
We encourage the Board of County Commissioners to
support and adhere to the recommended three-foot control depth in the
Wiggins Pass area in the interest of maintaining ecological balance,
hydrological balance, and for the benefit of the current residents of
the region. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stallings and then Mr. Weber.
MR. STALLINGS: My name is Stallings, Florida Wildlife
Federation. As we all know, a net ban or I should say a partial net
ban was just approved in the form of a constitutional amendment as
approved by a large overwhelming majority of voters. The reason for
it is that we are seeing a very, very serious decline in our marine
resources. The estuaries and bays which were formerly full of fish
aren't anymore. We've had some real serious problems there, and I
think that was a very public recognition of it and a public
recognition of government's failure to do something about it.
The reason we're so concerned with the situation here is
that we want to see the productivity maintained in this place. We
have a tremendously large number of recreational boaters, commercial
fishermen, and others who depend upon these fish and these marine
creatures.
To allow the permitting of a marina that will lead to
dredging at public expense that will at the same time trash the
estuary, greatly reduce its marine productivity is something that we
just don't feel should happen. We would very strongly urge you to
stick with the three-foot draft limitation which is recommended in the
forthcoming inlet management plan and to convey your ideas to
Tallahassee.
Now, Commissioner Constantine, you expressed some
concern about the lack of knowledge as to the permitting process and
where it stands and so forth, and I understand and appreciate your
concern. And along those lines, I called FDEP, asked them to send a
representative. Their representative is here today, and at the
pleasure of the board, if you would so choose, I think she could
address any questions you might have about the status of the permit,
what is and is not allowed and whatever. Ilene Barnett is here if you
should choose to hear her. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Weber will be your final speaker, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. WEBER: Thank you. Bryan Weber with Eco Group,
general partner of the development of Pelican Isle. There are many
issues involved as you've all pointed out, and I commend you all to
try to understand them better. We'd be happy to meet with any of the
new and existing commissioners and/or the public at large to step you
through what truly are our plans.
The important thing to state today is we have 190 slips
now. We're trying to reconfigure our slips into a new arrangement.
This reconfiguration is based on the existing system and the dredging
of the pass that's currently approved and permitted and going forward.
The new inlet management plan as I attended a hearing --
I guess it was last Monday -- the design draft parameters of the new
dredging of the pass are equal and consistent with what's in place
now, and that's what our reconfiguration is based on. So there's no
new surprises and no changes that even the state has considered in the
process.
Our current permit as planned includes the notification,
or as we've discussed with the state, includes the notification you've
all discussed being attached to each lease and/or ultimate sale of the
slip in the records for public scrutiny that says I Joe Smith or Jane
Smith is renting a boat here recognize and acknowledge the
configuration and the dredge parameters of the system and of the pass,
and makes that perfectly clear so that your fear is -- if your fear is
something like whatever Lely Beach has evolved into five years from
now, Joe or Jane Smith comes in front of you and says this pass
doesn't work, there's a piece of paper everybody can pull out that
says you were notified of the system, you're notified about the
county's intent of how we're dredging the system and how it's
maintained and please go away.
And I think we've worked carefully with the state on
that notification and even had some discussions with some county
people where I think that could work to protect you from that
happening and making sure that everybody clearly on the public record
is notified of that, and I'll state it one more time again here on the
public record, that that condition is a condition of our permit.
We've agreed to that. We've agreed to attach all those conditions and
notifications to the leases. It's not a question. It's not in dispute
from the development side of the party.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could you restate the condition?
I just want to be sure I have it clearly.
MR. WEBER: Well, basically we attach the design dredge
parameters and criteria called for under the existing plan and I guess
ultimately under the revised inlet management plan for Wiggins Pass
itself.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So each person who buys or rents
a slip will sign something saying I acknowledge that Collier County
has an inlet management plan and that its depths are --
MR. WEBER: It's dredged to a three -- it's dredged to a
three-foot design draft.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So there is the numerical
three-foot in that?
MR. WEBER: In the existing permit and in the
reconfigured inlet management plan. So nothing's changing there, and
our reconfiguration is based on that very existing parameter.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that something you would have
presented and put into the record for today, that --
MR. WEBER: I don't have it today in the record. You
know, we've bantered about language, but, I mean, if you want to draft
the language and send it to us, we'll certainly consider it. I mean,
if you want to draft something that you think is appropriate to
protect you from that instance or a document you think keeps Joe or
Jane Smith from appearing in front of you and objecting to something
that he's already acknowledged, that would be fine.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And you have agreed to that with
a state agency as well?
MR. WEBER: All of our discussions with the state going
on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This is not the first time you've
addressed that?
MR. WEBER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just wanted to comment on
that. When I talked with Mr. Kraft about the noticing to occur, as
early as Thursday, just past Thursday, the comment that he gave me was
that, yes, we have talked about noticing, but we have not discussed
nor agreed upon the method that that noticing is going to take. And I
explained to him that I would prefer to see the noticing and all the
legal documents, leases, deeds, and so forth so that the purchasers or
lessors would not be able to come to the BCC at some future date. He
said that was a good idea but it had not been agreed upon and that is
__
MR. WEBER: It's agreed upon -- It's agreed upon now.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As of yesterday morning at 11
o'clock when I talked with Mr. Kraft, it had still not been agreed
upon.
MR. WEBER: Well, that's probably because we haven't
heard from Mr. Kraft in four or five days either so I couldn't tell
you what he's thinking right now. But I'm telling you we'll --
whatever the document you think is that needs to be in place that says
what we've -- you know, that talks about the dredge parameters of
Wiggins Pass, we will incorporate that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You've just indicated that as
Commissioner Matthews said her idea -- and I think it's probably a
good one -- that it would appear on -- even if we have multiple
documents, it may appear on those. You said you were willing to agree
to that as well?
MR. WEBER: Right. And it all goes back to the
reconfiguration of the slips that we've got based on that very design
parameter and the system as it exists now. There's nothing hidden or
new that we're trying to do at all, except sit down.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Cut you right off.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the lie detector.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Harvey made some comments. I
don't necessarily agree with the premise of his comments anyway;
however, assuming that the scenario plays out as you've laid it,
because someone asks for something, because -- and if the scenario
plays out as you've outlined, that people will come back and ask us to
dredge to five feet or to dredge again and again, because they ask
doesn't mean it will happen, and the example Commissioner Matthews has
used is Lely Barefoot Beach. And while that has been an irritant I
think to the board that it returns, the bottom line is the end result
is we still kept that open to the public and, as a matter of fact,
we've -- are in the process of making it more open to the public than
it has been for the past several years. So people can come back and
ask, but that doesn't mean what they ask for will be the result, and
Lely Barefoot Beach is the best example of that.
A couple of the people commented as far as all of us
will be paying for that dredge. Again, I don't buy into the premises
that we'll necessarily end up in that scenario. I don't know whom --
whomever the board is at that time would agree to dredging anymore.
But assuming again -- I'm taking two leaps beyond what I
think will happen. But assuming again that that happens, that's not
general fund paying for that. The tourist tax pays for beach and pass
maintenance. So that would be -- If that happened -- and, again, I
don't believe it would -- the tourist tax.
What bothers me the most about the request for this
resolution is I keep hearing phrases that say potential that may
result or concerned the boaters may request or request could be based.
Everything is hypothetical. Everything is projected. There is nothing
there factual that will definitely happen. And, as I say, they can
make a request. Anyone is welcome to make a request. If this was not
granted, they can still come back and make that request, but I think
you've got to give credit to whatever the makeup of the Board of
Commissioners is when that time comes, and I have faith that if that
time comes, that the board at that time will make every good as a
decision as I think we did with Lely Barefoot Beach.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have an entirely different
situation now, and it's called boater safety, and I don't think that
there's going to be any commission that's going to in the future deny
a deeper or wider dredging when they have boats going aground and
possibility of people being injured, and I admit that's only a
possibility, but it's very real. And in addition to that, the
flotilla that's at the Cocohatchee River Park right now already is
helping marooned boaters in a three-foot design.
MR. WEBER: There are boaters of all shapes and sizes,
and a lot of them aren't familiar with the system, and they can get
stuck in the system.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly. The fact that we have
a three-foot design draft does not prohibit a person with a five-foot
draft or a six-foot draft from using that pass or from using the
channels or the basin. The fact of the matter is that if he goes into
that pass knowing it's a three-foot design draft, if he's got a
five-foot draft, he better be cautious.
And I'm concerned about the DEP issuing a permit that
has a design draft at the dock of five feet and the expectations of
people who don't know the Wiggins Pass basin system bringing a boat in
that's got a five-foot draft and not knowing that they're going to
have to be very careful.
MR. WEBER: Two more clarifications for the record --
And, again, it's a complicated issue I know and there's lots of issues
to be studied and I'm sure we'll all study them.
The first is this keeps getting referred to as a
five-foot plan. In our 190 slips, there are 20 slips that are up
four-and-a-half to five-foot category. That's to accommodate
predominantly sailboaters that we've had on the island for awhile. So
to call it a five-foot plan I think is fairly unfair. There are 75
percent of them are slips less than four feet of draft. So it isn't
even a two-foot difference. It's a one-foot difference from the plan.
You needed to understand that. But -- The second point tied to that,
and now I forgot it because I got all -- I got all caught up in my
five-foot plan.
But, in essence, as a matter of fact -- And, again, it's
out in public because it's been discussed with us. If that's -- If
five foot scares everybody, we're willing to move off that and have
told the state we'd move off that, and whatever permit they issue, it
was to accommodate some sailboats. If that doesn't appeal to anybody
which sometimes seem to be more environmentally friendly, we won't use
them. We won't want them.
The second point I was going to make is this new permit
that's issued is the first permit in our immediate area west of
Vanderbilt Drive of all those marinas in the system that does start
imposing draft restrictions. The state recognizes that as a very
important precedent for this area to get at what's the constraints of
the system, and I think they'll be the first to tell you this sets a
precedent for anybody else that now appears in front of them. And you
can bet, like everybody else in this room, we'll be watching the next
whatever permits come down the line to make sure that that same
precedent is being established because we've agreed to it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing after spending eight
years in the coast guard reserve and pulling people out of Wiggins
Pass, out of other areas in Fort Myers, we can put a neon sign out
there that says, "If you have more than three feet, don't come in
here," and we're still going to have people run aground.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're still going to come in.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The truth is, the knowledgeable
skipper is not going to run aground on that pass, and I don't know
that we can keep that from ever happening. Someone who lives in
Vanderbilt Beach can go buy a boat with a four-and-a-half-foot draft
and dock it behind their house today. We have a lot of residents back
there. There's nothing prohibiting them from doing that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I realize that.
MR. WEBER: And they do at our facility now as they do
at the facilities next to us, and we're trying to protect that right
but in a way that makes sense for everybody in the system.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I see the inlet management plan
being the controlling, and the fact that we have the opportunity with
this particular development to tag something on to each deed or each
rental or each lease that says you have to sign this thing you
understand the inlet management plan is an opportunity we didn't have
with the pre-existing development. I think it's a step in the right
direction for safety for that particular development.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a bit of an observation. I
know this job was supposed to be hard, but it's impossible to make
decisions without more information than I have today. I feel like I'm
being asked to judge something that should be a scientific decision
and I have no science.
So all I can see myself supporting as I come down to it
is this business of notification about the inlet management plan.
It's out there. Let's get some notification. Let's take them up on
their offer that we'll incorporate it into documents, and our county
attorney will work with your attorney to come up with some language
that's acceptable.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: If that's a motion, I'll second
it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We've got a motion and a second
and that motion --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the motion, what kind of
notice are we talking about?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think notice in all of the
legal documents. Please tell me what you think would be appropriate.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to send either a
resolution or a strong letter to the DEP requiring as a condition of
the permit that this noticing be done.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That notice in the legal
documents --
MR. WEBER: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could accept that.
MR. WEBER: We've agreed to that with the state already.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that's fine. That's fine.
I just want to make sure the DEP knows that we want it as a condition
of the permit.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have any objection to
putting that in letter form for clarity sake?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Whatever way the DEP will accept
it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to amend your motion
MR. WEBER: There were two stipulations at the end of
the resolution that --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. WEBER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
to that?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Hang on just a minute, please.
Do you want to amend your motion
To include the letter to DEP.
Second will amend?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second will amend.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one more, one more, one
more because it's also a part of the resolution, and I understand Eco
Group is willing to accept this, that they also not make any further
requests to petition an extension of the submerged land lease -- MR. WEBER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Which would allow longer
boats than currently allowed. MR. WEBER: Correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And if we could ask the DEP to
make that a condition of the permit as well.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just for the record, Mr. Weber,
you will agree to -- you'll agree to each of those?
MR. WEBER: Yes. Those are the as were -- as you worded
them in the resolution I read just quickly? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. WEBER: It's those two at the end? That's fine.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The motion then is, Mr. Cuyler,
you'll draft a letter, and perhaps you'll work with Mr. Weber to make
sure it's clear to him as well. But he'll draft a letter for my
signature to go out to the DEP as quickly as we can.
MR. CUYLER: Yes, sir. And I'll put in there that the
developer has agreed to those items as well. MR. WEBER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion
state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10D
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE USE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
SURTAX (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE LOCAL OPTION ONE CENT OR ONE-HALF
CENT SALES TAX) AS A FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SECOND GORDON RIVER BRIDGE - TO BE BROUGHT BACK IN TWO WEEKS
And 10D, direction on the ballot question for the
one-cent sales tax. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Just in my meeting with Mr.
Dotrill yesterday, I was discussing with him my excitement about the
information that I had gotten from observing at the MPO meeting about
the possibility of funding the Gordon River bridge with a penny of tax
during the tourist season, a penny sales tax, and my objective today
is to -- I have some questions that I will need answers to before I
will be able to vote on an ordinance proposing a referendum which is
what I hope we will be considering in the next -- at the earliest
opportunity.
So what I'd like to do is just get some of my questions
out and encourage you guys to do the same thing and see if we can get
some information and have a vote as soon as possible.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, once again,
not knowing that you had put this on as an add-on yesterday, I had
already asked our staff to put it on for two weeks from today to have
a formal public hearing, mostly because there's a lot of public
interest in this, and there are a number of civic groups that have
been highly involved, and I think they would like to be here for the
discussion unless -- but if you have something that you need answered
today before that formal discussion, I mean, that's fine; otherwise, I
would prefer to wait a couple weeks if it's nothing pressing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think your suggestion was just
we may have some questions for staff or direction for staff in that
two-week time period.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like -- I'd like not to get
to this meeting in two weeks and have questions that staff has to go
and research. I'd like to let them know ahead of time what our
questions are because we are -- as I see it, we're on a fast track and
I -- some -- a couple of my questions, one, there's the time frame.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
down the line?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
money.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
with your money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
The computer commissioner.
Could you just pass that lap-top
No problem. I'll pass it down.
Maybe we should all have one.
Not with taxpayer money. My
All right. We'll all have one
I'm concerned about the issue of
needing a special election, a mail ballot referendum, and the cost of
that was explained at the MPO meeting as being something in the
neighborhood of 100 and $150,000. I need to know the necessity of the
special election; in other words, how much time does it cost us if we
wait until the next regular election. I understand that that's March
of '96 and that there are specific limitations on when the tax can
begin to be collected, that it has to be the beginning of a quarter.
It will have to be January, and my goal is to find ourselves
collecting the sales tax January of '97. I think that's the earliest
possibility. If there is an earlier possibility, I'd like to know that
from staff.
But assuming then that we need to know -- that we need
to go forward with the special election, I'd like to know if it's
possible for the general fund to be reimbursed for the cost of the
special election from the penny tax revenues so that that -- the cost
of the election doesn't come out of general revenues.
And I'd like to know if the permitting money that's
spent prior to the referendum can come out of the penny tax revenues
assuming it's adopted. And, most importantly, I'd like a time line on
what's the fastest track possible to get this in front of the -- get
the referendum in front of the public.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to know all the things
Commissioner Hac'Kie would like to know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I unfortunately was unable to
attend the MPO meeting, and perhaps this was addressed at that time,
but I'd like to know what the backup plan is so that if this fails we
don't just say, gosh, I guess there's not a bridge and I guess we
lose. I'd like to know what our alternatives are if this does not
pass.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to say I think it's real
important that this be structured not as a referendum on the bridge
but as a referendum on the funding mechanism, and I also believe I
learned at the MPO meeting that we have to identify a funding source
relatively soon so that MPO will postpone the widening of the existing
bridge so that we don't have the nightmare we know we'll have. So all
of that in a time line is what I would like to see from staff, and I
guess that would come from you, Mr. Perry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can answer your question, Mr.
Chairman. The MPO ranked toll as the backup plan, a toll bridge.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Perry, perhaps you and I
could meet in the next two weeks and ask some specific questions on
that maybe we can answer before the public hearing.
MR. PERRY: I would be glad to, sir. And any other
questions that anybody has, if you please forward them to our office
through the manager's office.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else on that item?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, on that item, we were
contacted this morning by the city manager's office, and he has
indicated a willingness to use city road impact fees in some
proportionate amount to underwrite the cost of the referendum if that
also is allowable. We will be exploring that.
And Commissioner Mac'Kie has also asked for some
indication as to the number of acres of wetland impact so that we not
fool ourselves about what the environmental permitting hurdles are
going to be because they are considerable on both the west and the
east side of the river that is there. So that will also be included.
I've got a list of about nine things here that we'll have then on the
sixth.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: We do have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, we do have one speaker. Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: My name is Gil Erlichman. I reside in
east Naples, and I wish the commission would consider what happened
with the Livingston Road project. That project was -- I mean, it cost
taxpayers a million dollars for a mistake -- not a mistake but an
error that was made where the road had to be changed. The direction
of the road had to be changed, and a million dollars went down the
drain of taxpayers' money. Host of you -- I don't think any of you
commissioners were sitting on the board at that time, Livingston Road
project, but that's what happened, and it was done because of an
emergency. And I heard Hiss Hac'Kie speak of emergencies this morning
which -- when we were discussing the deep-well project. I hope that
the two new commissioners are acquainted with what the -- what an
emergency is in Collier County. In fact, it was defined about a year
ago. It has to do with the health, welfare, and safety of the people
in Collier County. Nothing else is an emergency, and nothing else has
to be rushed, and I think that we're rushing into this situation with
this Gordon River bridge project with this one percent tax. It's not
one penny. It's one percent additional sales tax.
Why are we locking in the financing of the bridge which
is -- the direction of the bridge has not been located? In other
words, is it north of the airport or south? That hasn't been decided
yet. Permits haven't been issued yet. Why are we locking in
financing of a project which has not been decided upon as to where
it's going to take place? Engineering studies are not complete.
You're asking Mr. Perry here. I would like him to answer at the next
meeting in two weeks or when you have it scheduled if the engineering
projects have been completed. Environmental impacts or impact,
permits, et cetera, they have not been completed. So how can we
finance something if we don't know exactly how much it's going to
cost? We're talking about this one percent additional sales tax for
six months. How do we know that's going to be enough money? I leave
these questions with you to be answered at the next meeting. I will
be here to ask these questions again. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman. Any
other discussion on this item? Seeing none, we'll take a one-hour
lunch. See you at 1:06.
(A lunch break was had until 1:15 p.m.)
Item #12B1
PETITION PUD-94-1, AYRES PARTNERSHIP REQUESTING A REZONE FROH A TO PUD
TO BE KNOWN AS SIERRA MEADOWS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CR951
AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD - CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 20, 1994
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi. We're back. Next item on
the agenda is 12-B-l, continued to the meeting of -- how convenient.
You were right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I told you.
Item #1282 & Item 8A1
PETITION PUD-94-6 THOMAS J. HANNAUSA OF HANNAUSA DEVELOPHENT COHPANY
REPRESENTING EATON PLACE OF NAPLES, LTD., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE EATON PLACE PUD LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD 1-1/4 MILES NORTH OF PINE
RIDGE ROAD - DENIED. NO ACTION TAKEN ON CONSIDERATION TO DEFER 100e OF
THE IMPACT FEES FOR SAID PROJECT
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 12-B-2 then the Eaton Place item
will be first up, Petition PUD-94-6.
MR. DORRILL: For which you already have a dozen
speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Mr. Saadeh, how are you?
MR. SAADEH: Sam Saadeh for the record of code planning
for petition PUD-94-6. I have some pictures, a part of the record,
which I'll share with you. The petitioner is requesting to fezone the
subject property from rural agricultural (A) zoning to PUD to allow
for construction of 140 affordable housing units, a 3,000 square feet
clubhouse, leasing center, and accessory recreational facilities to be
known as Eaton Place. The overall requested density is 14 dwelling
units per acre. An affordable housing agreement has been structured
to provide a density bonus of eight dwelling units per acre. This
petition will be consistent with the density rating system of the
future land use element pending that the affordable housing agreement
is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, providing for the
additional 8 units for an overall potential density of up to 14 units
per acre.
The surrounding area ranges in density from 1.69 to 14
dwelling units per acre. The Collier County Planning Commission
reviewed this petition on October 20th, 1994, and by a vote of 6 to 2
recommended approval of the subject petition subject to the
stipulations incorporated into the PUD document and by a unanimous
vote of 8 to 0 recommended approval of the affordable housing
agreement. 13 people spoke in opposition to the proposed petition at
the public hearing, and staff did receive two letters, one in favor
and one in opposition to this petition.
Staff is looking for two separate votes. The first is
to -- the first vote is for the affordable housing agreement to allow
for up to eight units additional, and the second vote is for the
petition PUD-94-6.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just for the record -- for the
record one addition to your comment. You had indicated one letter
against and one letter in favor of the project. MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have been given today a --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A pile.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, a pile -- a petition here.
I don't know how many. I haven't counted them, but probably at least
a hundred names on it. And I know my secretary has received a number
of letters. And, of course, we can't respond directly to those
because it is quasi-judicial. However, we'll enter those as part of
the record too, and the point just being, I think at this point there
are probably more than one person who have recorded their opposition.
MR. SAADEH: Staff does have only just two -- two
letters, but I'm aware of probably more, but I have not seen them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand you have --
MR. SAADEH: There are two letters.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand you haven't seen
them. I just wanted to be sure they became a part of the record. MR. SAADEH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Quick question for the Board.
Because this is quasi-judicial, we are prohibited from having ex parte
communications on it. Make sure no one, no member of the Board has
been influenced via letters or calls or what have you before we go
through the full public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've received a number of
letters, and I've responded to all that I have seen, but they've not
influenced me. The letters just indicate that I'll continue to gather
information.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have received some letters and
some telephone messages, but I haven't -- I don't think I have any
problem with undue influence.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Norris? Mr. Hancock?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have received a number of
letters on this subject. I responded to them in a generic -- with a
generic form letter, and I will make my decision on the information
that's presented here today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No conflicts. I have received
the letters also. Because I wasn't a commissioner, I didn't respond.
But -- but, no, I don't feel there's any undue influence placed on me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Much like Commissioner Norris, I
have had a -- what you might refer to as a form letter that's gone out
so that I could issue some sort of response, but that was in generic
form and according with our requirements. I've not let that influence
me to this point, and we'll base that solely on what we have today.
Mr. Saadeh, I had a couple of questions on your
presentation. Can you tell me what the density is of some neighboring
properties? I have three in mind. MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Walden Oaks, Lakeside, and Tall
Pines.
MR. SAADEH: Walden Oaks, which is known also as Lone
Oaks, is 6.32 units per acre.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Say that again. How many?
MR. SAADEH: 6.32.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 6.32.
MR. SAADEH: Lakeside, which is also known as Citrus
Gardens, four dwelling units per acre. And I apologize for the third
one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Tall Pines?
MR. SAADEH: I think that's straight zoning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. SAADEH: I'm not aware of that, but I do have a list
of up to 12 different developments that range from 1.69 to 14, and
they -- they -- they are from Pine Ridge Road all the way to
Vanderbilt Beach Road east and west of Airport Road. I have a whole
list of different densities on that if you like I'll share with you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't you give us those for
the record.
MR. SAADEH: Bear Creek is 14 dwelling units per acre.
Keystone Place at Arbor Walk is 12 units per acre. Cay Lagoon is 5.54
units per acre. Sleepy Hollow or the Crossing is 1.69 units per
acre. Emerald Lakes or Bridget Lakes is 3.5 dwelling units per acre.
Lafontana is 12 dwelling units, and that's care units. Monterey, 4.7;
Sunshine Village, 3; Lone Oaks, 3 -- 6.32; Orange Blossom, 3.42;
Citrus Gardens is 4. Some of these are built. Some are not. Some
are single-family only. Some are single and multifamily, and some are
multifamily only.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Saadeh, the photos that you
gave us here, what are these?
MR. SAADEH: These are photos of the project under
construction -- beginning stage and under construction that the
petitioner did provide at the Planning Commission meeting which became
part of the record, and I just shared them with you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What did -- the request in this is
to take the project that's already been approved and under
construction and to modify the intent and up the density; is that what
we're trying to do?
MR. SAADEH: No, sir, the petitioner who is all --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's Bear Creek, okay.
MR. SAADEH: Right, that's the project next door.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the density issue there's
another multifamily development nearby there called Fountain --
Fountainview? Fountainview, what's the density on that one?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just north of Tall Pines?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. They're three-story
garden apartments.
MR. SAADEH: I don't have that in my records. It
probably is not a PUD. I looked at every PUD which is a rezoned
petition. I did not look at straight zoning.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: These are garden apartments that
would be straight zoning?
MR. SAADEH: It could be if it's multifamily
residential.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it would be six then if it's
just straight zoning?
MR. SAADEH: No, they range anywhere from RMF-6 to
RMF-16. I've been told that it's 12 units per acre.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 127
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have a question, Mr.
Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, not at this point.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Why don't we hear from the
petitioner. Excuse me, before you get started, Chris -- you don't
have to put the timer on him. Timer in training today.
MR. FUREN: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of
the County Commission, I am attorney Michael Furen of the
Sarasota-Tampa law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Tim, Furen, and
Ginzberg. I'm pleased to be here today representing Eaton Place of
Naples, Limited, the applicant, and its general partner, Mannausa
Development Company. Tom Mannausa, the president of the general
partner, is seated in the audience right behind the display here. He
will be visible in a second. Julian Stokes, HA1 of the Appraisal
Research Corporation of Naples, our client's expert in real estate
appraising, valuation, and advisory services, is also in the audience
here today. We are here requesting approval of the Eaton Place PUD
together with a six-year deferral of the impact fees relating to this
affordable apartment complex.
The project location the Board is already familiar with,
but I'd like to take a moment to give you a little bit of background
of the general partner of this particular development. Tom Mannausa,
if you'd be kind enough to hand into the record and give to each of
the members of the Board a brochure that reflects the projects that
you have been involved in. Just to summarize, the general partner,
Mr. Mannausa, has been involved in 20 completed apartment projects
throughout South Carolina and Florida. There are four presently under
construction in addition to that and three presently in the planning
stages, one of which is before you today. Mr. Mannausa has obtained
both solicited and unsolicited letters from other communities in which
he has been involved, and I asked Mr. Mannausa to prepare a packet of
letters from those local governments which indicate the favor with
which his particular organization is viewed by your counterparts in
other areas.
The presentation will now give to the Commission a few
examples of various projects that Mr. Mannausa has been involved in
throughout other local governmental areas, and, of course, as was
previously indicated, the Bear Creek development immediately south is
a project which HAnnausa's company acts as general partner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Each of these pictures are of
affordable housing projects?
MR. FUREN: Tom, would you address that please?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're going to need you to come
to the microphone and identify yourself.
MR. HANNAUSA: I'm Thomas Mannausa from Sarasota. One
of the projects is not affordable; it's straight conventional. The
other four projects are affordable. And I have other affordable
projects too, photos that I've brought. I think I've handed you six
separate projects.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which of these is not
affordable?
MR. HANNAUSA: The Bristol Bay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. FUREN: There is one letter from the mayor of the
City of Fruitland Park which is located between Ocala and Leesburg,
Florida. And I'll just take the last paragraph.
Let me conclude by saying that the Mirror Lake Manor
complex has been and is good for our city. It was refreshing to work
with the developer who willingly did everything that he said he would
do. I would welcome the opportunity to work with you in bringing
another such project to Fruitland Park. And the purpose of that just
is to indicate the responsibility of this particular general partner.
If I may take a moment, Mr. Chairman, I think the tape will pick up my
voice if I can step around.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a portable mike.
MR. FUREN: Thank you. Can everyone see?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think we'll need you to hold
that up close too. It's kind of temperamental.
MR. FUREN: This is the project site. This is, of
course, Airport-Pulling Road immediately on this side. This is the
entrance to Bear Creek project is situated immediately south. There's
vacant land immediately to the north. And, of course,
Airport-Pulling, as we know, is a four-lane, what I would describe as
a major arterial highway.
The site plan shown in this particular layout reflects
12 buildings laid out as indicated. All of these buildings are three
story with a maximum height of 38 feet with one exception. That one
exception is in the southwest corner of the project. The Planning
Commission, of course, strongly recommended approval of this project.
Mr. Commissioner Thomas, I believe, one of the commissioners,
suggested that this building be made a two-story building, and the
developer was willing to make that modification. As I recall, there
was one two-story building out along Airport-Pulling, and the planning
board, Planning Commission, suggested that that building be shifted to
the rear and the three-story be placed in this location.
The project, of course, will have a landscape buffer
around the easterly, westerly, northerly -- excuse me, the westerly,
northerly, and southerly boundaries of the site. And in addition, the
Planning Commission recommended that there be a 6-foot fence in
addition to the landscape buffer already required by the Collier
County Land Development Code along the rear portion of the site, and
that is in the PUD document and development conditions.
There will be a total of 140 apartment units. Two of
those units will be for management. The balance will be for lease.
90 of those are 2-bedroom, 1-bath units, and 48 are 3-bedroom, 2-bath
units. The project also includes an approximately 3,000 square foot
clubhouse and recreation center that will also house the leasing
office for the project, leasing and management office, as well as a
swimming pool, weight room, aerobics room, laundry room, and there
will be a children's playground, tot lot as well. This is truly a --
a family type of community.
The project has along the north and the south 35-foot
setbacks. The Planning Commission, as I recall it -- Sam could speak
to this probably more accurately than I could -- but as I recall it,
the Planning Commission suggested again that rather than have only a
35-foot setback, which is quite a distance along the westerly
boundary, that we go to a 50-foot setback, and that is also reflected
in the PUD document, and that is agreeable -- we're agreeable with
that point.
The project, of course, as you can see, has significant
amount of open space. The building coverage itself, the residential
buildings, is only approximately 16.2 percent. Mr. Chairman, if I
could go back.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
MR. FUREN: The perspective of the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You need to have the microphone
with you.
MR. FUREN: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need to get a little clip-on
microphone there too.
MR. FUREN: The perspective that you see is just an
example of the type of structures that are proposed for this
particular development. We, of course, have indicated that these will
be affordable apartment dwellings, and the indication is that there
will be both very low and low income units made available in this
complex.
VOICE: No microphone.
VOICE: No sound. I'd like to hear this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you can hang on a minute.
MR. FUREN: It's on now?
VOICE: Yeah.
MR. FUREN: As I indicated, there will be both low and
very low units made available in this development. My notes indicate
that there will be 2-bedroom -- 18 units of 2-bedroom, 1-bath very
low. There will be 10 units of 3-bedroom, 2-bath very low. There
will be 72 units of low 2-bedroom, 1-bath and 38 units of low
3-bedroom, 2-bath.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can you help me out there? What
will the price -- monthly rental be assigned to the very low and low?
MR. FUREN: I have these available, Mr. Chairman. The
very low 2-bedroom would be a gross rent of $402 per month. The very
low 3-bedroom, 2-bath would be $465 per month. The low 2-bedroom,
1-bath is 603; and the low 3-bedroom, 2-bath would be 698. Tom, would
you explain what the utility allowance references, please?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before you continue, let me ask a
couple of questions. Tell me again, 3-2 very low, how many units did
you anticipate?
MR. FUREN: Three -- 2-bedroom, 2-bath very low will be
ten apartments.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And how many of the 3-2 of low?
MR. FUREN: Thirty-eight.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The 2-bedroom, 1-bath in each of
those categories?
MR. FUREN: Those were 3-bedroom, 2-bath that I was
giving you. The 2-bedroom, 1-bath would be 18 very low and 72 low.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The -- will there be a difference
in square footage, or will there be any noticeable structural
difference between those units?
MR. HANNAUSA: No, sir. The units themselves will each
have a full appliance package including microwave ovens, washer/dryer
hookups, contemporary kitchens, miniblinds, ceramic tile surrounds in
the bath as well as cast iron tubs. All interior units are basically
spec'd the same.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. FUREN: Mr. Chairman, we, I think, all recognize the
need for affordable housing in this community, as in many
communities. I was intrigued by a recent press release from
Washington which indicated that a new study by the National
Association of Home Builders says that Melbourne, Florida, has the
most affordable housing in the State of Florida. The study compares
the median costs of buying a home with the local family's median
income. It says Melbourne is the most affordable while Naples is the
least affordable. And, of course, I think that's reflected by the
very strong comprehensive plan policies in your growth management plan
that encourage and mandate the provision of adequate affordable
dwellings within this community. We feel this project is an
opportunity for the Commission to follow that growth management plan
mandate this afternoon.
I have a few housekeeping items, Mr. Chairman, if I
could, being unfamiliar with your particular local procedure under
recent supreme court decisions dealing with land use issues. And I
have here a series of exhibits that I would like to be sure are in the
public hearing record this afternoon.
The first, Mr. Chairman, is the Eaton Place rezoning
package with the plans which I'd offer into the record. These reflect
the modifications that I mentioned in my presentation, the two-story
building in the southwest corner of the project, and the additional
fencing as -- as well as the 50-foot setback in the rear yard. And,
again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record to be sure
it is in the public hearing record of the clerk the agenda item
transmittal slip, your packet, which includes the staff memorandum,
the executive summary, as well as the supporting documentation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That packet is part of the
record.
MR. FUREN: Thank you. The packet, of course, reflects
-- and I note again a strong recommendation by your professional
staff as well as a strong recommendation by your Planning Commission
that this project is appropriate both in terms of scale, density, loc
-- and location for approval by the County Commission.
You have in the record already the photograph of the
surrounding area that we submitted into the hearing record before the
Planning Commission. I won't clutter up the record with additional
aerial photographs. I would only say we had hoped to be here today
with the Bear Creek project and landscaped. We all know that
construction is not a pretty -- in fact, it's an ugly process, and we
had hoped that we would have a totally landscaped out buffered project
to be able to speak to this afternoon. Unfortunately, the timing did
not work out on that particular desire, but we would ask you to
consider -- the project is an unfinished project. When I was here
several years ago, I guess it was in 1990 when Mr. Mannausa and I came
down here for Bear Creek, which was a controversial subject, and there
was quite a bit of skepticism, I think, of whether an affordable
project would actually be built. And we're proud to demonstrate the
commitment Mr. Mannausa has to the community through the status of the
Bear Creek project. Tom, I think, indicated it will be several
months, but it's well on its way to completion.
The project before you today in terms of costs, total
costs, is approximately 9.6 million dollars. We talk affordable
housing, but in reality they are still very expensive projects. We've
spoken with Joan Smallwood, the owner of the property immediately to
the north, Mr. Chairman. And I would introduce to the -- into the
record and offer for the Commission's consideration -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Bring it up.
MR. FUREN: -- copies of those letters of support.
Obviously Mrs. Smallwood is directly and immediately impacted. She
owns approximately 18 acres, I believe, immediately adjacent to this
site. She would obviously be vitally concerned with potential
impacts, and you will note from the letter submitted that she supports
this particular project.
I have heard in about every affordable project that I've
been involved with the -- what turn out to be understandable, but they
ultimately turn out to be unfounded concerns about potential impact on
property values. And, in fact, one of your considerations under your
land development code is whether the proposed change will adversely
affect property values in the adjacent area. That's under -- that's
item 10 under your rezoning consideration. We asked Appraisal
Research Corporation of Naples, Mr. Stokes' firm, to do a -- an
analysis to determine whether or not, in fact, apartment projects have
any adverse impacts on adjacent properties. I would submit into the
record -- Tom, and if you will give to each of the commissioners a
volume for their personal use -- a copy of the study prepared by Mr.
Stokes' firm which, of course, indicates that the answer to that
question is a resounding no, they will not adversely affect property
values in the adjacent area. Mr. Stokes is available in the audience
for any questions by the Commission or others if those questions
should come forward.
We have, again, just a summary of the objectives --
certain objectives from your growth management plan which indicate the
-- the mandate of the plan for affordable housing as well as
indicating that within established legal parameters your regulations
should be reformulated to provide economic relief to developers of LHI
housing, low-moderate income housing. I'd like to enter that into the
record as well. And, of course, as the Board is well aware, the
Commission has, in fact, implemented that policy by providing by
ordinance for an impact fee deferral for six -- up to six years for
projects that qualify for that deferral by being low-moderate income
housing. Of course, the staff has reviewed our impact fee deferral
requests and, as indicated, that we qualify for that deferral.
I have a memorandum dated November 10th, 1994, from Greg
Hihalic to Richard C. Clark regarding impact fee waivers and
deferrals, which is a listing of those projects that have received
impact fee waivers and deferrals over the past several years. And I
would like, Mr. Chairman, also to enter that into the public hearing
record.
For the record we would acknowledge that the development
conditions and stipulations that are within the PUD document,
including those that the Planning Commission recommended, are
acceptable to the applicant in their entirety. We would request
favorable consideration respectfully of this project and urge your
approval. We will make ourselves available to the Commission for any
questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any immediate questions for the
petitioner before we go to the public?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to wait until after
public comment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't we do that. We have at
least one dozen speakers. And for those of you not familiar with our
speaking procedures, you have up to five minutes to make your
comments. There's nothing to prohibit you from it, but hopefully not
repetitive of -- if we have 15 or 20 people, hopefully you all can
bring a little new twist to whatever it is you want to offer. And
when you start, if you would state your name for the record and for
our taping purposes. Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: First speaker will be Mr. Frazier, Forrest
Frazier. And if I could, please, have Andre Cedras stand by. Mr.
Frazier.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we can have the person in
waiting in our little on-deck circle over there, it will help us move
along. Mr. Frazier.
MR. FRAZIER: Thank you very much. The Collier County
Board of County Commissioners has already approved a new affordable
housing project which has been spoken of as Bear Creek located on
Airport-Pulling Road directly across the entrance from Walden Oaks.
Its construction certainly in our opinion does nothing to enhance the
area. The three-story units are without elevators when I thought that
there was a county law that stated that three-story units were
supposed to have elevators. Now the county zoning firms have given
preliminary approval to yet another affordable housing project
immediately adjacent to the Bear Creek development. We think that
this does not reflect good planning as far as density is concerned.
We also are very concerned about traffic in that particular area.
You're going to be adding about a thousand people into this
development, and we all know the traffic problems we're having on
Airport Road at the present time, and at that crossover we're going to
have even more difficulty. Further, we feel that this is a betrayal
of the zoning laws which many of us considered very heavily in our
selection of property at Walden Oaks. We think that this change will
adversely affect the value of our properties.
I fully understand the need for affordable housing in
Collier County. But why, ladies and gentlemen on the Board, can't you
spread this affordable housing around into different areas instead of
allowing Eaton Place to be located immediately adjacent to Bear
Creek? I'd like to have you give due consideration to what I have
said and what many others will say following this for a consideration
to relocate this affordable housing project. And I would also ask you
to take appropriate time, particularly for the benefit of the new
board members, to look at the area and study all of the data that's
been given to you particularly in the area of density. Thank you very
much. (Applause)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: While I appreciate the
enthusiasm, if we can keep the excitement to a minimum, it will help
us move along a little quicker.
MR. DORRILL: Following Mr. Cedras, we'll have Ms.
HcKnight, Alice HcKnight.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cedras. No, I'm sorry, you
were correct. We just announce whoever is in the on-deck circle as
well. I'm sorry. Mr. Dotrill, do you want to try one more time? Mr.
Cedras -- are you Mr. Cedras?
MR. CEDRAS: Yes, I am.
MR. DORRILL: If you will, sir, come back.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What we do is announce the
speaker and then whoever is next so we can keep it moving. We're not
succeeding very well at that today.
MR. CEDRAS: It's slightly confusing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. CEDRAS: According to Division 2.1, Section 2.12 on
page 2 of the Collier County Land Development Code, the general
purpose is to promote the, quote, healthful and convenient
distribution of population and to maintain and improve the quality of
life for all residents.
We were not here objecting to Bear Creek affordable
housing development. We understand Collier County is under pressure
to create affordable housing. And so we don't want to be labeled as
against affordable housing or not in our backyard. We made no
objection to Bear Creek whatsoever. However, Eaton Place, which will
be immediately adjacent to it to the north, would add 140 units to the
108 units of Bear Creek and effectively create a ghetto of 500 to a
thousand persons. Now, I use the term ghetto not negatively, but in
keeping with Webster's Dictionary which defines ghetto as a quarter of
a city where persons live because of social, legal, or economic
pressures and which confers inferior status and limits opportunity.
The building of Eaton Place adjacent to Bear Creek will create an area
of excessive density and will impact the traffic patterns and property
values of the existing neighborhood and ultimately control the quality
of future development in the area. I urge you to vote against the
adoption of this proposal. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Now Ms. McKnight and then Mr. Summa, Fred
Summa. Thank you.
MS. McKNIGHT: I'm not going to do it wrong this time.
Good afternoon. I'm here because --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And -- I'm sorry. But if each
one of you as you come up can also identify yourselves even though Mr.
Dorrill is saying your name.
MS. McKNIGHT: I'm Alice McKnight, and I live in Walden
Oaks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MS. McKNIGHT: I moved down to Florida five years ago.
Most of the people in our audience here are senior citizens. And the
concern that you have now is they're fearful of Airport-Pulling Road.
They're already scared of it. You now put another 500 cars across the
street from the entrance of Walden Oaks, they're scared to try to even
come out there. We had an accident last week, a very bad one. I
think it's unfair to pick on a development like that across the street
from Walden Oaks. Now, we know that Naples is embarrassed to think
we're the lowest ones with affordable housing, and I certainly agree
with that. But there's so much land, and there's so many places they
can go, and scaring senior citizens who are embarrassed to a point too
because don't forget they've invested their money. Now they're told
that they're going to live in this congestion, and they're not going
to be able to go out on the street and not be able to go on the
highway, and this conversation has been going on around Walden Oaks
now for three months. I think it's a very serious concern that you
should have about the senior citizens. I don't know whether you know
it or not, and nobody seemed to mention it today, even though I think
counsel did their homework very well. If you look at Lakeside, Walden
Oaks, and Tall Pines, has quite a bit of family and youth out there.
But most of the areas out there in Emerald Woods -- Emerald Lakes are
all senior citizens or certainly 90-some percent of it is. So be
careful because you're disturbing an area where people have chosen to
retire in safety, and you put them in this congestion. They do not
have any public transportation in Naples, Florida. They have to have
cars. They have to go out. They have to get out on the highway.
I just ask you to be very careful as you approve this because I think
you're very disturbing to senior citizens, and I don't think we really
want that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Summa and then Lister Robinson. Mr.
Robinson, you will follow Mr. Summa.
MR. SUMHA: My name is Fred Summa. I'm a director of
Barrington Association in Walden Oaks. And rather than repeat what
the preceding spokespeople have vented, I would just like to say I
would appreciate the commissioners if they would think very hard about
this subject and vote no for Eaton Place or negative. And I know
there's a lot of things that will not enhance the area by developing
this property. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Robinson and then Ms. Varner, Jane
Varner.
MR. ROBINSON: My name is Lister Robinson. Mr. Chairman
and board members, I'm a winter resident of your beautiful city. And
whereas I share -- I am also a resident or property owner in Walden
Oaks, and I share the concerns that have gone before me. But I would
just like to tell you how I came to be a resident of this city in the
wintertime. I'm an engineer by profession. I approach things with an
engineer's point of view. I did a lot of studies as to where I wanted
to spend my winters. And I settled on this city of Naples because
when we came down here and did our research, it was a beautiful city.
It's well regulated, and we were very -- my wife and I were very
impressed with the Walden Oaks development, and that's why we bought
there.
I now have a concern, not with affordable housing, as
other people have said. I think affordable housing is -- you know,
how can you possibly be against it? But I invested my money in buying
property down here with one set of zoning regulations, and I feel
somewhat betrayed at the thought that those zoning regulations are
going to be changed and that the investment that I made hoping to
spend many pleasant years in the -- in the winter in Naples are
perhaps being jeopardized by, as somebody pointed out, a thousand
people in a relatively small area just across the road from me. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Varner and then Mr. Anthony.
MS. VARNER: I'm Jane Varner, member of the Taxpayer
Action Group. Welcome to our new commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS. VARNER: TAG has always been an advocate of
considering all people's concerns when approving affordable housing
projects, so we hope you will continue to consider how the placement
of affordable housing projects affect the surrounding neighborhood.
I have a couple comments, and I don't know if these
questions are in order, but I would like to ask a question of Mr.
Mihalic also. One comment is I'm glad to see -- there are some very
low income units available, which $402 dollars is affordable. But
$603 for a 2-bedroom, 1-bath? Is this -- is this the case? I mean I
see in the paper advertised all the time -- I mean they have -- in the
classified sections they have all kinds of 2-bedroom, 2-bath
apartments, 550. Does this 603 include utilities? Did I miss
something? This includes the utilities?
MR. MANNAUSA: Can I answer this?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You need to use the microphone.
MR. MANNAUSA: The figures that Mr. Furen provided were
gross rent figures. From that is extracted a utility allowance which
is respectively 75 and 90 dollars for 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom unit.
So the actual effect of that rent is as follows: Very low 2-bedroom,
1-bath, 327; low 2-bedroom, 1-bath, 528; very low, 3-bedroom, 2-bath,
375; low 3-bedroom, 2-bath, 608. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify that, the -- are
you contemplating charging that money and including utilities, or that
is included in only for figuring purposes?
MR. MANNAUSA: The figures I just stated to you will
also have utilities paid on top of it which are the 75 and 90 dollar
utility allowance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. Perhaps I didn't put my
question properly. The $603 that were mentioned before, if I wanted
to move into and qualified for one of those 72 units, would I be
charged $603 each month? And if so, would that include utilities, or
would it be the lower figures you just mentioned, and I'm on my own on
utilities?
MR. MANNAUSA: It would be the lower figure, and you are
on your own per se. However, the utility allowance is a detailed
composition of several different types of utilities with a history of
actual bills, so it's not a guess method of arriving at the utility
allowance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So the numbers you gave us
originally were the total of a formula you used to come up with that
number?
MR. MANNAUSA: That is correct. And those figures are
adjusted typically annually as provided by the HUD statistics.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. VARNER: Well, I guess it would be my understanding
then that would be the most that that -- that person in that income
bracket could pay with utilities. I mean that's all inclusive, 603,
not 603 plus utilities; am I correct?
Okay. It still seems a little high for a 2-bedroom,
1-bath when -- if -- I don't know if you from time to time check with
the newspaper and see what's being advertised and so forth. Okay.
That -- that's my comment. The very low income units seem
reasonable.
My question then, and this is for our clarification and
probably the public's clarification also to Mr. Mihalic, are section 8
recipients entitled also to avail themselves of Eaton Place and other
affordable housing complexes?
MR. MIHALIC: Generally section 8, which is rental
subsidy units, are not involved in affordable housing.
MS. VARNER: In affordable housing. That was my
question, that could there be a stacking of government benefits,
people receiving other -- MR. HIHALIC: No.
MS. VARNER: So actually these are to people getting no
other government assistance?
MR. HIHALIC: No other rental subsidy.
MS. VARNER: Rental subsidy assistance.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
MS. VARNER: All right. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Anthony, and following Mr. Anthony I
have Mr. Lessard, Gregory Lessard.
MR. ANTHONY: My name is Orsie Anthony, and I live on
Anthony Court, which is a side street just to the west of Bear Creek,
and I've talked to just about every person that lives on Yarberry Lane
which is another street coming right off Anthony Court. I haven't
spoke with anyone that is in favor of this project. I don't want to
be repetitive. Host of the stuff that has already been stated I agree
with. I'm here speaking in opposition to Eaton Place for the simple
reason, saturation. I agree that I think -- it's not good planning to
try and put that many apartments in that small an area. Collier
County is a very large county, and I'm sure there is other areas in
the county that the Board can find or developers can find to put -- to
spread it out throughout the county rather than a thousand people in
-- within a quarter -- a half an acre area, whatever.
The traffic problem also is a problem, I think, and it's
going to get worse. I noticed there's traffic lights going up all the
way down Airport Road and really one should be looked at at Airport
and Orange Blossom especially with the development -- the way the
development is continuing to be built in this area.
The height of the buildings also I think are -- my
property line is probably less than 150 feet from the first buildings
of Bear Creek, and it's really not -- not a pretty sight with
three-story buildings backed up to your property line. And I -- I
would just hope that the Board would -- would really look at it
carefully and try and spread it around rather than put it all here.
I think this also has a ripple effect. I said it during
the Bear Creek request for PUD voting change, and it was indicated by
one of the board members at the time that they were not going to
approve any more low cost affordable housing right there in the same
area. But just as sure as I'm standing here, you'll see more coming
if this is approved, and I just think that the Board need to make a
decision as to whether they want to start spreading it around rather
than just let it continue in one area.
And you mentioned -- one of the gentlemen mentioned that
they was going to do a two-story building on the southwest corner of
Eaton Place if it's approved. I'm not -- I'm still -- I'm still 100
percent in opposition to it, but I would like to see a two-story
building on -- both buildings two-story on the back side. That would
at least leave the first 3-story building another 150 or 200 feet from
-- from my house or maybe 400 feet. But because this building will
be directly east of my house and -- and -- and I just think it's --
it's not even conspicuous or doesn't even blend in with the other
buildings, doesn't even blend in with Arbor Walk. And I just think --
I just hope the Board will look at it and really think about it before
they approve it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lessard and then Mr. Thomas.
MR. LESSARD: Good afternoon. My name is Greg Lessard.
I'm chairman of the Affordable Housing Commission. Today's topic is
Eaton Place. My desire is to speak more about the affordable housing
issue itself. There will always be opposition by the local community
to affordable housing and always a better location. Who we don't get
to hear from unfortunately are the 11,000 households that are living
in unaffordable housing. They unfortunately are working today. This
silent population does not appear here out of pride. No one wants to
be labeled low income. And the nurses and the bank tellers,
et cetera, will not appear before you and say I can't afford where I'm
living.
I could speak to you about the social benefits of a
community having families in affordable housing, the positive benefits
to the family in society. I believe this explanation is best
addressed by therapists, social workers, and psychologists. I could
speak to you of the economic benefits of having 11,000 households
currently living in unaffordable housing living within their means.
Current housing costs -- based on their current housing
costs, I -- I see this leading eventually to wage inflation in the
community to make ends meet. This will cost all of us. It will leave
the community with a transient service sector. Many people are living
out of the community earning their wages here, and they can't afford
to live here and are moving out of the area or seeking homes outside
of the area. This will have a very negative impact on spending in the
community. The money multiplier effect, I think, is best explained by
an economist.
I could speak about the cost of having approximately 50
percent of our school children on free lunch because their parents are
spending too much on housing. This is a cost that we all incur. I
could speak of the human condition, the lack of hope. Instead I have
brought two speakers with me today and would like you to hear their
message, which is the message that I would like to play for you in a
second.
You are the bridge that brings hope and stability to
these families and our communities. Eaton Place is the opportunity to
bring some of these 11,000 families across the bridge.
Give me a minute. He's playing a tape. Hopefully you
will be able to hear it fine.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I'm not quite sure what
you're doing here, but I need a little hel -- I need an explanation.
You need to use the microphone in answering. But you need to tell me
what it is you're doing. I just saw you turned around, and now
there's music playing in the background.
MR. LESSARD: I'm playing a tape that I'd like you to
hear today which is my message for you today. Is that acceptable?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we pick that up on --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need a microphone by that as
well. What's this -- Mr. Lessard, Mr. Lessard, if you have a
presentation or if you have a comment, that's fine. We're not going
to listen to Simon and Garfunkel, okay?
MR. LESSARD: I thought I had five minutes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You do to make a presentation on
this, not to play music and tell us -- Mr. Cuyler, can you turn around
and turn that down, please.
We're talking about the issue of affordable housing in
this particular project being Eaton Place in Collier County. And if
you'd like to address that, you still have some time left. If you
don't have anything further on that specific issue, then I'd ask you
to yield.
MR. LESSARD: No. I think you either heard my message,
or you did not. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Thomas will be your final registered
speaker.
MR. THOMAS: Welcome, Commissioners, and a special
welcome to Commissioner Hancock and Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Fred.
MR. THOMAS: I'm here representing the Affordable
Housing Commission today, and I'll keep my message very short. If we
go back and remember the same kind of a hearing several years ago
where people had a serious concern about all the bad things that would
happen to their community if we would let an affordable housing
project come, and I just ask you all to think of Windsong. I'm sure
you're not going to know what Windsong's all about. I'm sure you're
not going to remember Windsong. But I tell you Windsong is the same
as April Circle. It has not caused any problems, been a very quiet,
peaceful neighborhood. All of the preconceived notions of what would
happen if you allow a project like that in your community just did not
come to fruition.
When you're dealing with a project like Eaton Place,
you're not dealing with the lowest income families in the community.
You're just taking a chunk. It takes an agency like mine to deal with
the lowest income families, and then we build a different kind of a
place in places where -- Eaton Places we can't afford to build, so we
take neighborhoods that are really marginally neighborhoods and with
our program turn those programs around.
So just keep that in the back of your minds. Sometimes
you have to make really tough decisions for the better good on the
long haul. And I think in this case you have an opportunity to do
that. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Thomas.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That completes our public
speakers. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a series -- a few
questions for a number of people. First, Mr. Saadeh, Sunshine
Village, what was the density and proposed product in the Sunshine
Village PUD, because I believe that's immediately adjacent to the
western side of the project?
MR. SAADEH: That's three -- three dwelling units per
acre, and it's single and two-family.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're talking
single-family homes, possibly duplexes?
MR. SAADEH: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Second thing is, and this
is for Mr. Saadeh also, have we looked at what the threshold at the
intersection of Walden Oaks and Airport Road is for signalization
there, and does this project approach that threshold of build-out? If
we combine Bear Creek and this project, are we getting into a traffic
control problem at that intersection?
MR. SAADEH: According to our transportation department,
we don't have any traffic problems. It's -- the road is still going
to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ladies and gentlemen, please, we
have a couple reasons not to do that. First, it drags things out.
Second, our minutes and records person can't hear what's going on, and
that all goes into her microphone and does ear damage, so if we can
keep the boos and hisses to a minimum.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's difficult to spell ooohh on
a transcript.
The reason I ask, Mr. Saadeh, is particularly have we
looked at signalization there because I heard a traffic concern from
the public? And, again, I understand that the numbers don't merit
certain levels of review, but -- but I'm asking specifically have we
looked at signalization and whether we approached that threshold?
MR. SAADEH: It's part of your package. I'm looking at
the notes to see if that's one of them --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While you're doing that, let me
go to something else quickly. I heard some people mention that this
project represents about a thousand people. I think we're mixing up
some numbers there because that equates to about seven people per
unit. The thousand number comes from the number of trips per day that
this project is proposed to generate, I believe. We're probably
looking at around 450 to 500 people as residents based on 3 people per
unit or so, just a clarification.
On the Smallwood project -- or Miss Smallwood's property
just to the north, if I understand it correctly, unless she received
some form of affordable housing density bonus she is set at four units
per acre being in an urban area; is that correct?
MR. SAADEH: Four minus one for traffic congestion. Her
bottom line would be three -- three dwelling units per acre unless she
qualifies for in-fill. If the site is under 10 acres and -- there's
certain criteria she has to comply with. Plus if she applies for
affordable housing, the same would apply. But the base density is
three units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three units per acre?
MR. SAADEH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I'm going to mention
two main concerns I have at this point, and then I'll let the
discussion proceed, and I'm sure there will be voices by others also.
One, I have some transitional difficulties with the project from a
planning standpoint to go from 14 units an acre to 3 units an acre.
We have 14 at Bear Creek. We have 3 on the other side, and 14 doesn't
fall in between those two. So I have some transitional difficulties
on the perimeter of the project with the height of the building and a
transitional difficulty based on the density alone. I don't want to
squash affordable housing. Again, I'm just trying to look at it from
a logical planning standpoint, and that's not what I would call a
transitional use between those two densities, so I'd like to see that
addressed a little more specifically.
And, secondly, the front of your project -- I believe
your plan is a mirror image of Bear Creek?
MR. FUREN: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe your plan shows a
mirror image of Bear Creek as if you flipped Bear Creek over; is that
what your site plan indicates?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need you to come to the
microphone to answer, please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Allow him to answer on the
record.
MR. HANNAUSA: They are separate developments, but the
site planning could be construed as a mirror of Bear Creek, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. With Bear Creek you have a
-- a three-unit building adjacent to Airport-Pulling Road that's very
close, that the rear balconies are very visible along the road, and I
know you have -- your landscaping is not in place, but we don't grow
38-foot trees in the matter of a couple years. I'm concerned about
that forward building being so close to Airport Road, the aesthetics
of that, the visual appearance from the roadway. The folks in Walden
Oaks and the adjoining neighborhoods are concerned about that also. I
consider that a reasonable concern and would like to see that
addressed as far as external aesthetics.
Your water management detention systems possibly could
be wrapped to the front of the project to create more of an entrance
and push the buildings back a little bit further. Those types of
ideas I -- I think could help allay some concerns. I'll leave it at
that because I know you're going to be hitting all these points, but
those are where my concerns lie.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, did you take the
photographs?
MR. CUYLER: I have them all here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Look at those again for a
minute.
MR. HANNAUSA: As it relates to the first three-story
buildings, I could respond to that at Bear Creek. I received a phone
call from Sam during the initial framing process of the construction
of Bear Creek. At one of my site visits inspecting the construction I
also was concerned. We did Bear Creek under a PUD plan, a detailed
plan that will receive final approval. In retrospect I wish that
building was set back further. Sam at our prezoning conference
indicated a concern. In our meeting I told him I would provide over
and above the minimum landscape requirements which are quite extensive
for Bear Creek additional buffering. So I've got additional queen
palms that are extensive in size that will be planted. We'll take
another look at that as it relates to that project.
In addition, relating to Eaton Place, my plan has been
and is and is of record to have an additional setback imposed from
Airport Road, which is 50 feet from the 35 foot that is stipulated.
So that, I think, responds. If the buffering at Bear Creek of that
first building is not as desired, then we would come back and take
another look at that, provide some additional enhancement to it.
MR. FUREN: I would just add, Mr. Chairman, for the
record, originally as I understand the plan there was a two-story
building in that location, Commissioner. And as a result of the
Planning Commission recommendation, the three that was down in the
southwest corner was moved out to that particular location considering
the fact that there was an additional 15-foot setback recommended and
agreed to beyond that presently at Bear Creek.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand and I mimic Mr.
Anthony's concern for the residents back there having a 38-foot
structure within 50 feet is -- is not what I would consider
transitional to a 1-unit per acre development. So, again, we may be
talking about from my -- from my position a reduction in density in
order to meet some of these -- these perimeter needs.
MR. FUREN: I -- I, of course, can't personally speak to
that issue. That is a business and economic issue for the project as
to what that could be. I, frankly, can't say whether it is something
that our client would even consider in terms of the density. We've
tried to address that issue through agreeing to decrease the one
building in the back to a 2-story as well as provide additional
buffering beyond that required by the code, namely the 6-foot fence
recommendation by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mannausa can address
the -- the question of -- of any reduction in density here in a
second.
I would comment in regard to two items. One is the
so-called concentration of development in this particular area. If
you will note in the study that was prepared by Appraisal Research
Corporation of Naples, your average size of apartment complexes
throughout the Collier County community is approximately 285 units.
These two projects, Bear Creek and Eaton Place, are less than the
average size of the apartment complexes that exist throughout the
community.
Secondly, the -- the map that's reflected in Mr. Stokes'
report, I think, is about seven, eight pages in, which indicates the
dispersal throughout the Collier County community of the so-called
affordable housing projects. You will note that the -- unlike the
portrayal that was given, they are fairly well dispersed throughout
the area. So I'd make those two points.
I've also taken the liberty, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Commission, to do a summary of staff comments, if I could, and
that's enough for each of the commissioners. They address basically
three issues. One is compliance with the Collier County growth
management plan. The other addresses the issue of traffic, and the
other addresses the issue of compatibility. We -- we believe that the
responses of your professional staff are disinterested responses.
They are unemotional responses, and they reflect facts. We concur in
those assessments. And in summary they find no traffic problem, no
compatibility problem, and full compliance with the growth management
plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just for clarification's sake,
this is your summary of our staff's --
MR. FUREN: What I did in preparation for this hearing,
rather than try to have to thumb through this very detailed and
extensive and well written staff report is anticipating issues having
gone through this process probably now a thousand times in the last
several years, took what I considered to be key summary statements
which address the issues I anticipated might be raised here today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You picked what you considered to
be the highlights, we might say.
MR. FUREN: The highlights. That's a highlight film.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Couple of questions triggered by
something Commissioner Hancock said. This appears to be from the
photographs we have of the Bear Creek project in work right now,
indeed, a mirror image. And you said it could be construed that way.
Was any of the work that was done for Bear Creek used in this project
as far as the layout, design, so on?
MR. HANNAUSA: I'm Thomas Hannausa. There was a
separate design altogether. In fact, there are differences in the
building design itself. From a
bird's eye view looking at pods on a site plan, it could be construed
to be very similar.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that's why I'm asking. When
you say construed, there was -- none of the work that was done on Bear
Creek was used --
MR. HANNAUSA: There's a separate architectural
engineering agreement.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm not asking you
specifically on the building, but on the layout of the grounds and so
on. It's strictly coincidence that it came out in a mirror image?
MR. HANNAUSA: I directed my land planner to properly
plan out this property. And, of course, there are a number of
constraints that he's got to work within as far as the setbacks and
the traffic flow and parking requirements and things like that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But none was used -- absolutely
none of what was used on Bear Creek was used here? MR. HANNAUSA: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. I need some help here, Mr.
Saadeh, how we arrived at the density of 14 because I know that
includes -- has to include a density bonus of 3 units? MR. SAADEH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And why I ask that -- it's a
little bit interesting. You mentioned most projects in the county --
or I think you said an average of 265 units. When you add the two
together -- you own the entire property. If you include the two
properties together, Bear Creek and Eaton Place, is 276. So it's
roughly on average to what we have, yet it's receiving -- each one of
those in effect is receiving the density bonus.
MR. SAADEH: Just to clarify the statement that Mr.
Furen had mentioned that the average size of a project is 285 units,
and these two combined are less than that, that is true. However, if
these were combined, they wouldn't qualify for the in-fill of three
units per acre. The total maximum density would be up to 11 and not
14 just for the record, your information only.
Going back to the density issue, it's the base of four
units per acre minus one for the traffic congestion, which is three.
Then you add the in-fill which they qualified for because they are
under ten acres each site, then that puts you back to six plus up
eight units per acre for affordable, your overall potential is up to
fourteen potential.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Up to being the key phrase there.
MR. SAADEH: Up to being the key which is throughout the
executive summary staff report and presentation. It's up to you to
make that determination whether you want to give the 14. It's up to
14.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The -- now, I don't want this to
be construed to be anything other than exactly what I say but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good luck.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- if I were to own a parcel of
property and wanted to develop it with roughly the average number of
units that our affordable housing projects in Collier County have and
found that that density wouldn't be allowed if I had developed it all
as one, could I simply divide it in two and have two separate projects
and approach it so that mathematically under the County's formula --
MR. SAADEH: Not after the adoption of the comprehensive
plan in 1989, January 10th. If the property was divided before not to
take advantage of the comp. plan, I would say yes, you could, which is
the case in this case probably or similar. But if you were to divide
it today's date, you cannot simply to take advantage of the density
bonus, no.
Going back to Commissioner Hancock, I would like to
address your issue before we go over it. It's stipulation G on page
10 of the PUD document that the developer will provide a fair share
contribution toward a capital cost of any traffic signals when deemed
necessary by the County. At this time the transportation department
does not feel that it is deemed warranted at this time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that --
MR. SAADEH: But it's on the record that they will pay
their fair share when it's warranted.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This may be unfair. I may be
asking you to recall something you weren't involved in, but does Bear
Creek have a similar requirement? I would assume it does. When Bear
Creek was developed did they have a similar requirement on cost
sharing of signalization?
MR. SAADEH: I have the PUD document. I could look it
up for you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Again, it's a secondary
point, but --
MR. SAADEH: I would -- I would just guess yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's good enough for me,
Sam.
MR. FUREN: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sir.
MR. FUREN: Again, for the record, I'm Michael Furen. A
couple of things just to clarify. Mr. Mannausa advises that the Bear
Creek ownership and the Eaton Place ownership were totally different
ownership. There was no effort to in essence divide. And as Sam
indicated, your comp. plan precludes that specifically to create a
parcel solely for taking advantage of the in-fill density. So the
answer to that question is no, that wasn't done in this instance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Maybe Miss Cacchione
can help me with this -- was going to say Mr. Saadeh, but you look
quite different than Mr. Saadeh. Doing the mathematical formula, we
went through four to three, six plus the up to eight more. That final
density bonus of up to eight additional units, that's at the
Commission's discretion, and that is -- how many of those? Is that
all eight are at the Commission's discretion? A portion of those are,
and I assume there's some criteria on which that's based?
MS. CACCHIONE: If I could, Barbara Cacchione for the
record, chief of long-range planning. I'd like to hear about the
specific language in the plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Chris, could you bring those up?
MS. CACCHIONE: There are two provisions in terms of
density bonuses that this project has been awarded density on. One is
affordable housing, and that is eight additional units may be added,
and they have to be compatible with surrounding properties. The
second under the residential in-fill is the property has to be 10
acres --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm really sorry, but can I get
you to do that first one again?
MS. CACCHIONE: There are two density provisions that
have been provided on this property under the comprehensive plan that
the property may be eligible for. The first is the affordable density
-- affordable housing bonus which is up to eight units may be added
if it's compatible with surrounding property. The second is the
residential in-fill, and there are very specific criteria for the
residential in-fill. And that is that three additional units may be
added to the base density if the project is 10 acres or less in size,
has central public water and sewer.
The following conditions must -- must also been met.
The project must be compatible with surrounding land uses. The
property in question has no common site development plan with
adjoining property. There is no common ownership with any adjacent
parcels, and the parcel in question was not created to take advantage
of the in-fill residential density. A finding of fact must be made on
all of those criteria in order to achieve those additional three units
per acre.
What staff did is look at those criteria, and they found
that -- what we utilized was the property tax records which showed
that the property owners are different in the two situations.
However, there is an option to purchase in which one of the partners
is the same in both Bear Creek as well as Eaton Place. In terms of no
common site development plan, there is no site development plan that
has been approved on this site, so at this point in time there is no
common site development plan.
The third is that -- that it is not to take advantage of
the residential in-fill provision. That is an interpretation of this
Board. Staff in the past has recognized that if the land was created
prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan, that would be a way
to determine that it was not created to take advantage of the comp.
plan. That is not the only criteria that could be utilized, and it's
up to the interpretation of this board to finally interpret this
section in regard to the consistency with the plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can you just explain to me -- we
have one, two, three sets of questions. Explain to me the first item
you spoke of as far as like owners, and there is an option to purchase
right now. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
MS. CACCHOINE: What we looked at was the property
owners as listed on the property tax for -- roll for 1994. Those are
different owners as of today. As I understand it, there is an option
to purchase this property, and one of the partners that is purchasing
has the intent to purchase the property is a common partner with the
Bear Creek. I donwt know the legal entities, and I really canwt
address that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Cacchione, if this affordable
housing request was not on this property, what would be the -- the
probable density that would be allowed on this on just a standard
application?
MS. CACCHIONE: If interconnection were provided to
adjoining properties, three units per acre without affordable
housing.
COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: And without in-fill?
MS. CACCHIONE: And without in-fill, just the base
density.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The option agreement, how old is
that?
COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: Could we get the petitioner to
give us some advice on that?
MR. FUREN: Mr. Commissioner, Michael Furen again. Tom
Mannausa can give you the date of the option agreement. I would like
before he does that to clarify Bear Creek is owned and developed by a
limited partnership known as Bear Creek of Naples, Ltd. That is a
separate independent legal entity that has no ownership rights
whatsoever into the Eaton Place parcel. The Eaton Place parcel is
proposed to be developed by another limited partnership known as Eaton
Place of Naples, Ltd. The only -- and that partnership will have no
ownership interests whatsoever in Bear Creek. The only commonality is
the general partner has a very small interest in the project is
Mannausa Development Company. But the two projects are separately
financed, separately developed, and separately owned. Tom, if you
could address --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What would a very small interest
be?
MR. MANNAUSA: On the Bear Creek project, point 5
percent, which is one-half of 1 percent. The other 99 and half
percent is comprised of my general contractor, point 5 percent, and
Boston Capital Partners at 99 percent as the limited partner. On
Eaton Place the relationship is 1 percent me, Mannausa Development
Company, as general partner, 99 percent contemplated but not yet
amended and restated to the partnership agreement, First Union
National Bank is the limited partner.
One other comment is the two landowners that sold Bear
Creek property and the Eaton Place property are separate. The Bear
Creek property was sold by William Schweikhardt as trustee for a group
of landowners. I think there were three parties that represented the
ownership of that; William Schweikhardt was the trustee. On the Eaton
Place parcel it is a property comprised of four individuals who are
residents of Naples headed by Whitley S. Ward, DDS.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: At this point -- hang on. At
this point I think what weTre going to do, rather than bounce back and
forth on every question, you all will have a chance to wrap up because
I realize you're going to need to get some things on the record. But
unless a question is directed at you, I'll ask you to wait until that
wrap-up.
MR. FUREN: Sure. I would just -- for the Commission's
consideration, Mr. Mannausa and I have been speaking while you were
talking with staff. Mr. Mannausa wants to be responsive to some of
the comments that he heard today from those in the community, and he
has authorized me to indicate to the Commission rather than embark on
a different course that's long and tiresome for everybody --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I need you to hold that mike up.
MR. FUREN: -- that he would agree to reduce the second
building from the south and the southwest corner from a three-story
building to a two-story building, and he would agree to reduce the
building out along Airport-Pulling Road from a three-story building to
a two-story building. That would cost the project eight units and
cost the community eight units of affordable housing, but he believes
he can still do that and have a successful project.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you know if those eight units
will be from the very low or from the low?
MR. FUREN: I'll let Mr. Mannausa address that, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. MANNAUSA: It would strictly be proportionate. The
allocation to the very low is 20 percent. So since we lost 8 units,
20 percent would be very low, 20 percent low.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually my question's been
addressed.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if I'm not mistaken, earlier
in the discussion the petitioner's representative was making a point
that -- and showed us a number of projects that Mannausa Development
had made and how wonderful they were and made the point that they were
also developing Bear's Creek. So when it was advantageous to be the
developer of Bear's Creek, that was brought out. But now when it's
disadvantageous from a legal point of view to be involved in Bear
Creek, now they're not involved. That's a bit of a conflict in the
statements I've heard here today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You'll have an opportunity --
unless he asks the question again --
MR. FUREN: I'm sorry. I thought there was a question.
MR. NORRIS: No, that was not a question. That was a
statement.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have a couple concerns, and one
of them Commissioner Hancock brought out very well, and that is the
density. I'm looking at Walden Oaks at 6, Lakeside at 4, Sunshine
Village directly adjacent at 3, others 1.69, 3.5, 5.4, and then, of
course, Bear Creek at 14 and I think your point of there should be
some transition there. Perhaps it would be appropriate to allow a
higher density than the 3 or 5 that we see here, but to have another
with 14 side by side, I think you need some transitional there. And
as you pointed out, that's just good planning. So the density issue
seems incompatible to me.
I also have a question under our housing element of the
growth management plan. Mr. Mihalic, maybe you can help me with this
__
MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- but policy 1.4.1 says housing
shall be distributed equitably throughout the county. And this is an
issue we've taken up in the past, I know particularly in east Naples,
where there has been some interest in kind of cjustering of affordable
housing projects. And we have talked about that policy and how the
intent was so that we wouldn't have one pocket of the county that had
a number of low income or affordable housing things so we don't end up
with a -- someone used the word ghetto, but you end up with a poor
section of town, and we can spread those throughout. MR. HIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The map that's been provided by
the petitioner points out seven different locations all spread
throughout the county. If these -- it would seem appropriate then if
these are indeed two separate developments, Bear Creek and Eaton
Place, that they should be spread out as well. It seems to meet our
own policy. They should be distributed so we can avoid that one heavy
pocket of having two side by side. And I think those two issues are
similar but separate, one being the density question and the question
of transitional density. But trying to meet that policy -- it seems
we're failing in meeting that policy by having two affordable housing
projects that we're being told are separate and distinct side by
side.
MR. HIHALIC: Well, Commissioner, I think that in the
table we're looking at that the petitioner has done, what was
considered affordable housing back in the middle '80s, a project like
River Reach do not have any rent controls. And the maximum income
that you can have to live in that project is 150 percent of needed
income or a little over $60,000 a year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I qualify.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So do I.
MR. HIHALIC: So I don't see those as affordable housing
projects. It was the lack of sophistication at that time of what
Collier County considered affordable housing and what they should be
doing with the affordable housing issue. When we deal with --
affordable housing has rent controls or rent limits on it. We only
have one that's occupied right now in the urban area, and that is
Windsong Club on Immokalee Road with the Laurel Ridge Apartments on
Santa Barbara and Green Boulevard being the second one that's just
finishing construction at this time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And Bear Creek.
MR. HIHALIC: Bear Creek is also under construction but
has no occupancy at this time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But Bear Creek will qualify under
what we're describing right there.
MR. HIHALIC: Bear Creek will qualify under modern
affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assume the decisions we make on
this board are based not only what exists at this moment but what will
exist over the long term. In other words, just because something
doesn't exist now, we wouldn't go ahead and permit 16 of these in a
row.
MR. HIHALIC: No. I think that's true as long as they
were all going to be constructed and built. I think that's the
question, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So I think that brings me back to
my point is if in an effort to meet our own policy of distributing
these equitably throughout the county, and I think that is not only in
fairness to the projects themselves but in fairness to the surrounding
neighbors, and I think that's why we set that policy as part of our
growth management plan. I don't know that this project side by side
with another project qualifies with that policy.
MR. HIHALIC: In my opinion, Commissioner, that policy
was put in place because at the time the growth management plan was
being adopted there was concern about all the affordable housing being
placed in Immokalee and none of it being placed in the urban area.
And it's the best of my knowledge that that was the reason that that
policy was put in place. You notice that it's for the objective above
it that says by 1994 we'll have affordable housing that meets all the
needs including the growing population of the county.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand we didn't want to
put it all in Immokalee, but I think you also nodded or indicated yes
a moment ago when I said that part of the reason for that was so that
we didn't have it all centered in one area. Whether that's Immokalee
or east Naples or Golden Gate or North Naples, the idea was not to
have an area which we set aside in the county for affordable housing
in a concentrated form and then didn't have it in other parts of the
county.
MR. HIHALIC: That's true, Commissioner, but you need at
least 250 to 300 units to be managerially functional in any project,
in any apartment project. That's the size of what your project has to
be to be able to manage it effectively.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So are these two going to be
ineffectively managed because neither one of those meet that size?
MR. HIHALIC: It would be difficult to economically
manage only 120 units with an on-site manager, yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are the chances then that we'll
have one manager over both of these projects to make it more -- MR. HIHALIC: I'd like the petitioner to speak to that,
but I think that that's a possibility.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Maybe you can help me with that,
Mr. Mannausa.
MR. HANNAUSA: They would each have separate on-site
staff living on the property managing each, but the controlling
influence, I guess, would be through my eyes as to maintaining them
effectively and operating them in accordance with the strict
requirements.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So for economic's sake you will
be overseeing both?
MR. HANNAUSA: That's correct, from a public view
standpoint there will be separate leasing centers, separate management
in each project, separate maintenance staff in each project.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two things. One, I think it's
important to make a distinction between what's a developer, what's
property owner. And our ordinance requires separate property
ownership, and that's separate from who manages the construction and
-- and decides what the density is. So I don't -- while I recognize
what you're saying, Commissioner Norris, about it being convenient
sometimes and not at others, I think it is -- I mean I'm a lawyer, so
I apologize, but I think it is a distinction with a difference. I --
I also recognize I'm -- I'm the rookie at this job, but I need some --
some marching orders again from the county attorney. It seems to me
that our job today is to look at the criteria to determine whether or
not this project qualifies for either the affordable housing density
bonus and/or the residential in-fill bonus and that we should make
findings based on those criteria to determine whether or not the
project qualifies.
MR. CUYLER: That's correct. An element that I've heard
discussed by the Board that goes to both the in-fill and, in my
opinion, to the density bonus, when you heard staff say that they're
not necessarily entitled to that, I think the factor that may limit
that is compatibility. And I think that's also a factor in the
in-fill analysis that Hiss Cacchione went through. It also talks
about compatibility, so that's a zoning criteria and also a comp.
plan. It's also built into your comp. plan, but basically that's
correct, to make sure that the petitioner has gone through and
established the various criteria that he would have to as part of his
petition, compatibility, and then to get above the base density, those
two -- those two items that you mentioned.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This has gone in a number of
different directions. Each time one of us speaks we have a new
direction. I'd like to try and again bring that back to some form of
resolution, whether it be positive or negative, but at the Board's
discretion. The difficulties I see -- and I'm going to address these
to Mr. Hannausa and hopefully get them close to the form of a motion.
I feel the adjacent residents have a valid concern, a valid concern in
transitional property, a valid concern in someone who lives in a
1-unit per acre development bordering 14 units per acre. That's not
the type of precedent I want to set. However, I understand that
without a density bonus there is no affordable housing. Without
affording you additional units above and beyond the base density, you
cannot afford to build units and rent them at rates lower than the
market dictates, so we're in between those two.
The difficulties I see with the project physically are,
one, the units to the rear of the property, 38 feet next to a 1-unit
per acre area or 3 units per acre that is single family, generally
single story, sometimes two story, I find that incompatible. The
second thing, the unit closest to Airport Road at three stories is
incompatible. At two stories at a 50-foot setback, I'd want some --
some real strong buffering statements made in that area, again,
partially because of what Bear Creek has done, and I think visually
people are put off by that. And so those are my two concerns, and I
guess I need to know at a reduced density can you do this project? In
other words, at less than 14 units an acre, are you going to be able
to step forward and do the project, or are you not, because if not,
then we may be in a bit of a bind.
MR. HANNAUSA: I came prepared to this meeting to
address that question. I can live with the 132 units that Mr. Furen
proposed. Any less than that the project won't happen, and we will
have to resort to other methods. What I desire is compatibility with
the neighbors, this project and, of course, the objectives of the
County Commission and the comprehensive plan. The buffering -- I can
certainly tell you that the projects that I have developed, and I've
provided photos and have additional photos, they're all beautiful
projects from a landscape perspective. Some projects that are ten
years old look as good as those that are just complete. I'm into the
landscaping. I've received three awards of my projects related to
landscaping. We can agree to commit to additional buffering in front
of the two-story building set back 50 feet along Airport Road, and I'm
agreeable to dropping the density down to 132 feet and providing the
additional buffering that is agreed to, which hasn't really been
stated properly. The additional buffering along the rear of the
property is a 6-foot fence, trees on both sides staggered both sides
of the fence at a height, which I believe is 25 feet, planted out in
height with jasmine growing on both sides of the fence as well. So
you end up with a green wall rather than a brown wall or something
along those lines. The 132-unit figure is one that matches up given
the building plans that are -- that are laid out as far as the
building plan layouts them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Adjacently Bear Creek has 120
units?
MR. MANNAUSA: 120 units. It's a smaller site. It's
8.573 acres. It's built out at 14. The adjoining project to Bear
Creek, which is not affordable, Arbor Walk apartments, is built out at
12 units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 132 would be roughly 13.2 or
13.37
MR. MANNAUSA: I don't have a calculator handy.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. MANNAUSA: I believe that is approximately correct,
yes .
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 10-acre site.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Nothing else.
MR. MANNAUSA: But with the 132 units I can be
successful. I can bring another beautiful project to this community,
and my commitment to make it beautiful is to you as well as myself to
be accountable to myself on having these projects well managed and
manicured.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I don't think anyone on this
board is questioning your ability or desire to do that, but we do have
the real property issues to deal with, and that's a concern for me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions? Do you want to
make some sort of closing statement, and then we'll close the public
hearing?
MR. FUREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the
record I'm Michael Furen. If I might first address, Commissioner,
your statement. What I had attempted to indicate, and if it was
misleading in any way, I vociferously apologize to the Board. What I
had attempted to indicate in the opening remarks was the quality of
the projects that the general partner of this particular developer had
been involved in throughout South Carolina and Florida. If that did
not come out clear in the statement, I certainly apologize to the
Board for that.
Secondly, the policy 1.4.1 that is set out about LMI
housing shall be distributed equitably throughout the county, I think
it's important to note that it does say equitably, and it does not say
equally. I think it's also important to note that this is not a
present-day staff snapshot. It is a policy that is stated in terms of
the long range planning context of your growth management plan. To
simply look today and take a snapshot of one area and says -- say all
affordable housing here is -- is really, I think, a stretch on that
particular policy application. I think what this policy says is over
the long term planning window of this particular document, affordable
housing should be distributed equitably throughout the county. We
think that the map that Julian Stokes did indicates that to be the
case, even though some of those affordable projects may not qualify
technically today under new affordable housing guidelines.
And, finally, I made the point, and I think it's a valid
point, that when -- your average apartment complex, which affordable
housing is -- these are apartment complexes. And when you look at the
average size of those complexes throughout the community, and they are
approximately 285 units, and you have two projects that total less
than that in this vicinity, I don't think it's fair or legally correct
to say that there is a conglomeration of affordable housing in one
location.
You have to also consider under your policies the
location of where apartment complexes should go. They should go in
easily accessible areas where there is shopping, where there are
schools, where there are public facilities and infrastructure
available to service those particular developments. This area fits
those criteria and standards. So it's not as though let's put housing
over here or there. You have to view reasonable, rationale locations
for those facilities. This location fits that bill. This location
fits that bill when you analyze it calmly and dispassionately and
consider what your plan and your code says. We believe we have met
each and every of the requirements for both the in-fill density bonus
as well as the affordable housing density bonus. I indicated a
willingness to compromise somewhat on the three-story buildings
adjacent to the properties to the rear and the one up front. Mr.
Mannausa has indicated a commitment to additional buffering beyond
that required by code to address the visual perspective off of
Airport-Pulling Road. So we think we have demonstrated a willingness
not to come in here and -- and simply take a hard line, but to try to
have a dialogue with the Commission and with the community to see what
could be done to improve further this project. We are prepared to do
that.
I find it interesting -- and one concluding remark, Mr.
Chairman, quoting from the Sunday November 20th Naples Daily News, the
welcome to the two new commissioners by the press. And I quote,
yesterday's thinking has been no panacea on the issue of affordable
housing. Who better than Hancock -- I won't give your ages -- and
Mac'Kie to show the way and overcome the not-my-backyard syndrome. It
is their own contemporaries who have the greatest need for decent
housing on a service industry salary.
So we think we have met our burden. We think that the
competent substantial evidence that is before the Commission
demonstrates our entitlement to project approval and to the impact fee
deferral, and we respectfully and humbly request that you approve it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. I
understand we have one more public speaker before we close the public
hearing, if you'd identify yourself for the record.
MR. BROWN: Yes, my name Elva Brown. I've lived in
Walden Oaks for five years, and I'll make this real short. I haven't
heard anyone say anything about the people that live in -- are going
to live in these apartments, the children. How about the ones 16, 17
years old? Where are they going to go to school? What do they do
when they come home from school and their parents are off working
somewhere? Are they going to go upstairs and do their homework, or
are they going to play basketball out on the lot, or are they going to
go across the street to King Richard's or going sell dope?
Now, the other thing that I wanted to mention was logic
like Mr. Hancock brought out. I have a friend who is a statistician.
He said you tell me what you want to know, and I can get you all the
statistics you want to prove it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. With that we'll close
the public hearing. We're open for discussion and questions from the
Board. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval of the
petition as modified by the -- by the petitioner today to reduce the
density to 132 units and to reduce the two -- the two building heights
as -- as you had requested, Commissioner Hancock, and also to add the
additional landscaping and -- and just to say I -- I understand that
we have a big education curve in this community to -- to stop people
from being afraid of affordable housing. But I wish that you could
look at some of the pictures that we got to see up here today, and I
hope that you will. And I hope that time will tell, and you'll see
that this isn't something so much to be afraid of. We're talking
about, you know, my brother and, well, some of the people on this
board who could qualify to live in this housing. It's not something
to be afraid of, and it looks like it's going to be beautiful. And,
frankly, I'm glad that we have somebody with the reputation that --
that -- and the experience that's here to develop a quote, unquote,
affordable housing project.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You mentioned the -- as part of
it the additional landscaping, and can you be a little more specific
what you meant by that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I understood that there was
proposed additional buffering near both of the -- both of the
buildings where the height restrictions had been -- had been reduced.
I'd be happy to be as specific as anybody else could help me be.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I believe there was a discussion
of a 50-foot setback at the rear of the property as opposed to a
35-foot and a 50-foot setback at -- for that building at the front of
the property as opposed to a 35-foot and additional buffering on both;
is that correct?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I understand it, that --
that's correct, a 50-foot setback. Also you mentioned additional
buffering. And I'm going to ask, Sam, you talked about Royal Palms
and some other really great greeny stuff. Where does that show up as
a commitment, Mr. Saadeh?
MR. SAADEH: In the PUD document under the landscaping
we do have that they will have over and above the county ordinance for
landscaping a 6-foot fence, but we don't have the criteria that he
mentioned today. I would suggest that we include that if -- if the
Board chooses to approve this and have it as part of the PUD
document.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before taking any further action
with Hiss Hac'Kie's motion, you're about four units short of where I
wanted to go. And let me give you the reasons. And I understand your
comments, but the two buildings on the northwest that you agreed to
reduce to -- to two floors, that -- that's -- or next to RSF-1, I
think, a two-story building is about the most we handle there, and I
agree with that.
I'm a little concerned still about the building along
Airport Road. This is the one that visually is -- is going to mark
your -- your community. It's going to mark it to the adjacent
neighbors in Walden Oaks that have to drive by it every day and
Lakeside, so forth.
You know, I grew up in apartments. You hang your
laundry on the balcony. You store stuff in there. You've only got
800 square feet in the whole place, so the balcony becomes your third
bedroom if you will, or your second bedroom. You start throwing stuff
in there. You know -- okay. Well, these were my neighbors. It
wasn't me. So I am concerned about that.
And I know we're talking about 25-foot palm trees and
other great stuff, so when I get to my units, I'm getting down to 128
units because I want that building down to two stories, and I want the
two on the northwest down to two stories. That's 12 units to me, so
we're getting down to 128. I know that's below your threshold. But
in order for me to have any sense of being compatible with adjacent
property, that's my feeling, and I guess I'm going --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. The Planning
Commission had the one building to two stories. We asked for the
building in the middle -- well, he's agreed to the building in the
middle at the back to be at two stories and the one up front.
MR. HANNAUSA: So we solved both of our problems by --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but you said 132 units. If
we have 3 structures at 2 floors, that's a reduction of 12 units; is
that correct?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need you to have -- Mr.
Hannausa, I need to have a microphone.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually you may have just
answered my question. So we already had one structure at two floors,
and you've agreed to the other two to go down to two floors?
MR. HANNAUSA: That's correct, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HANNAUSA: So it accomplishes both of our objectives
really.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And somehow I believe Ms. Hac'Kie
is for looking for something a little more solid in the way of
landscaping other then over and above the code for those structures to
protect the adjoining properties. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. MANNAUSA: If I might add to her motion then, the
rear property line being buffered with a 6-foot fence with staggering
trees on both sides of that fence and in between the trees jasmine
planted along the fence on both sides. Along the front on Airport
Road in addition to the standard buffer type A, which is noted on the
plan, I would be agreeable to additional height material being planted
which would -- I would propose to be Queen Palms which have quite an
expansive leaf and, I believe, approximately six to eight additional
Queen Palms covering that two-story building would be more than
sufficient, in addition to the landscape buffer type A that's already
out in the front along Airport Road.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And planted at what height, sir?
MR. MANNAUSA: Twenty feet minimum.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the
motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second with these
stipulations.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Your motion now encompasses that
description?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That landscape description,
please.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Further discussion? I'm going to
oppose the motion. I am not sure that we meet the density bonus
requirement or the in-fill. I'm not comfortable regardless of -- I
appreciate what you've tried to accomplish with the front property and
so on, but I still think 13.2 is not compatible. We're not -- we
don't have a transitional density there. I don't see that as
compatible. I don't see this meeting policy 1.4.1 where we try to
distribute these projects equitably. And I think I'm going to have to
go check the difference between equitable and equal when I go back
down the stairs in my dictionary, but for those three reasons in
particular, the compatibility issue in particular with the densities,
I'm going to have to vote against it. Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My
concern is not one of the project itself. It's a very -- it looks
like a good project, and Mr. Mannausa has made quite a point of the
quality that he builds, so that's not a concern. I'm sure that it
would be a fine project.
My concern is, once again, one of compatibility of the
neighborhood to go from -- from this now 13.2 density down to 3 with
no -- no transitional area is not really what I think we're trying to
accomplish all the time. I would love to see this project go forward
in -- in an appropriate location. I don't -- from what I've heard and
seen and been presented here today, I don't think that this is the
appropriate location.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there's no further discussion,
all those in favor of the motion state aye. All those opposed?
Motion fails 3-2. 3 in favor, 2 against. You need four. So if there
isn't any other motion, seeing none, let's take about a ten-minute
break. (Applause)
MR. MIHALIC: The companion impact item, that's a moot
point, the impact fee density.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Let's take about a
ten-minute break, and we'll come back at 3:10.
(A short break was held.)
Item #1283
ORDINANCE 94-60 RE PETITION PUD-87-36(1) MICHAEL FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF
AGNOLI, BARBER 7 BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING THE CLAUSSEN COMPANY
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS CARLTON
LAKES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED RESIDENIAL AND COHMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY FRONTING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD -
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi. We're back. It is 12-B-3.
PUD-87-36(1).
MR. NINO: For the record Ron Nino.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hello, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Hi. How are you all?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wonderful, sir.
MR. NINO: The petition that's before you is for a -- an
existing PUD called the Carlton Lakes PUD. This petition attempts to
repeal the current PUD documents and in so doing offers the developer
and you an opportunity to revisit all of the development strategy that
was first approved in the initial PUD. That change of development
strategy is one that retains the residential community, essentially a
residential PUD with a small 7-acre commercial tract, which I will
talk about further. But relative to the residential character the
proposal is to increase the number of dwelling units originally
authorized from 626 dwelling units to 800 dwelling units.
The density rating system of the future land use plan
otherwise allows upwards of six -- seven dwelling units per acre for
this property, and in reality by application of the density rating
system, the total number of dwelling units that could otherwise be
authorized for this PUD would be 1,400 dwelling units. So while the
increase that is being requested appears to be somewhat substantial,
relative to what could otherwise be considered, it's relatively a
small increase.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask you a question,
and I'm sorry to interrupt. MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But when you say would otherwise
be considered, that would be if there were no existing PUD and they
requested one today?
MR. NINO: If they were coming in the door today, they
could ask for up to 6 -- 1,400 dwelling units, and obviously there's a
reason for that. Anytime you're over a thousand, you're into a DRI
area, and anywhere between 800 and a thousand you could substantially
still be into a DRI. So whenever you see the figure 800 coming from
-- before you, you know that they're trying to avoid the DRI --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wisely so, I would guess.
MR. NINO: -- which is a wise move because it's a very
expensive move.
One of the other things that -- one of the other changes
to the development strategy is the current PUD designated by parcel
specific locations the types of housing units that would be built
within this PUD. The amendment before you does away with any parcel
specific requirement and simply says that if we have -- if you approve
800 dwelling units, then we can build them anywhere within the areas
-- the development tracts that are deemed suitable for development.
That policy is not unlike the policy that has been
practiced for some time with respect to PUDs. So it -- it -- it
strikes of the current policy.
The seven -- this -- this PUD in terms of the
residential element, if approved at 800 dwelling units or 3.35
dwelling units per acre, would be consistent with the FLUE. The
7-acre commercial tract is deemed consistent with the FLUE because of
a compatibility exception that was approved for this project under the
zoning teevaluation program. Other reviews by staff with respect to
levels of service, particularly traffic, have indicated that approval
of this project will not exceed any of the thresholds and is
consistent with policy 5-1 and 5-2 and is, therefore, consistent with
the traffic element of the growth management plan.
We've reviewed the plan for other consistency
relationships, and usually we talk about the coast of the water --
coastal water -- water -- the open-space requirement. And this
project we feel comfortable is consistent with the open-space
requirement. Over 35 percent of this project will be in -- 34 percent
of the project will be in open space, and we're confident that the
normal relationships on tract development will produce the remaining
26 percent for the 60 percent of the space requirement. So we're very
comfortable with this project in all aspects. It is consistent with
the growth management plan.
As you know -- and I probably should have said at the
beginning -- I think you all know where the project is. Livingston
Road is the west limit of this property. Livingston Road is not a
place obviously, and you all know about Livingston Road and its
permitting difficulties. This developer has made a commitment to
build the two lanes of Livingston Road when and if our permitting
requirements are in place and any issues relative to right of way are
cleared up.
At that point in time any interim development will be
allowed from Immokalee Road, and that development will be limited to
right in and right out, so there will come a time when this developer
will feel compelled to encourage the extension of Livingston Road so
that there is a more unobstructed access to that property.
The Planning Commission when they reviewed this petition
unanimously endorsed the petition for your approval. I might say that
the developer has agreed to include within the PUD document all of the
stipulations and conditions that have arisen in the review process by
various and sundry staff members, and we have no outstanding issues
with develop -- with this developer. Everything is included in the
PUD document including a provision to interconnect this project with
Regency Park should the streets in this development become public
streets.
There were no objections voiced at the Planning
Commission. Staff has received no written objections to this
petition, and I'd be happy to respond to your questions.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've got a question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, is this particular PUD
under any sort of sunset provision? MR. NINO: No, it predates --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It predates the sunset
provisions?
MR. NINO: This approval would fall within the sunset
provision of the LDC.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That would generate a sunset
provision?
MR. NINO: Yes, automatic.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is that? Three years, is it,
or '-
MR. NINO: Five years.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Five years. Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is contained in the PUD
document, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: That section of the LDC is referenced.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two questions. This is an
increase in density, and the land use or the distribution of whatever
type of dwellings they choose to put on this property has become more
vague?
MR. NINO: Has become more vague?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, like the old PUD.
MR. NINO: Where they decide to build single family
versus multiple family will be a market response. In that sense,
yes. They will be able to respond to the market condition that
dictates when they build single family and when they build multiple
and how much of each. The original PUD was relatively specific in
terms of directing where those activities were to occur. And that is
a -- has been a common practice, Commissioner, in -- in most of the
PUDs that we've dealt with in our office in the last several years.
Pelican Marsh, for example, has no sites -- has no
spacially arranged distribution of housing structure types at the
outset. They have the ability to respond to that as market conditions
determine. Lely Resort is under the same umbrella. I dare say
everything that we've done --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But those are DRIs. This is
not.
MR. NINO: But that doesn't change -- yes, but that
doesn't change the strategy of distributing housing structure types.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just remember in the last
two years that I've been on this board we've had several instances
where we have removed from the petitioner the ability to make those
choices. We've had instances where petitioners have asked to have two
primary uses, and we've said, no, pick one. That's all you get.
We've had instances where petitioners have come in and wanted to move
the locations of multifamily dwellings. And we have denied the
ability to do that because what they wished to do created a situation
where there their less affluent portion of their PUD would be
relatively isolated from the rest of the PUD. I personally think this
is a step backwards from where we've been going.
MR. NINO: Well, I think recently -- I think the most
recent one was Huntington, and Huntington we authorized 576, and they
have the option of building anywhere from single family to multiple
family. Anywhere they decide is appropriate within that PUD. That
was only three, four months ago.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think that trend is a
response to when we -- we required the specificity in the prior PUDs.
Generally market demands will change a boundary here or there, and
each one requires a PUD amendment, which to the petitioner can be
cumbersome in the long term. I believe that's why the trend to doing
large bubble tracts and saying within this tract these types of uses
may be allowed at the petitioner's discretion. I believe that's how
we got it here, Commissioner Matthews.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, maybe you
can help us out. I know this has been a particular item that you've
been brought up on a number of occasions when we've had -- I think
Commissioner Matthews made the example when we've had more than one
use, and we've said pick one or the other. I know that's been a pet
peeve with you on more than one occasion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's true, Mr. Chairman. Since
the old commissioners of this board have been on the board --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're loving that, aren't you?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, we're enjoying it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The old commissioners.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have generally sought to have
more specificity in these things, and I think Commissioner Matthews is
right, that that's the direction we've been going, not -- rather than
relaxing our specificity requirements, we've been sort of tightening
them up, so the trend is the direction that she pointed out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. I just -- just on
that issue I can see -- I can see issues on -- on, you know, concerns
on both sides of that point. And as much as I like to see lawyers get
-- get paid lots of money, I think that to the extent that you define
those boundaries, what you do is require the petitioner, the property
owner, to come back in, hire a lawyer, hire a planner, an engineer,
somebody, and come back in and -- and clog the agenda of this board,
frankly, and spend a lot of money to convince us that the market
forces have changed when what we do when we allow it to be flexible is
just allow the market to dictate.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's true, Commissioner
Hac'Kie, but this board is not in business to make it cost effective
for people to develop property. Our business is to protect the public
and the interests of the public, and that's where our primary concern
has got --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I agree with that except I
think neither are we in the business of making it difficult to
interfere with private property rights and -- and I think that that's
an unnecessary interference.
MR. NINO: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I can -- let me add
that the concern as to structure type specificity is important when
adjacent to existing development. I can recall when we did the Grey
Oaks development the -- there were concerns there that dictated that
up against single-family housing we would put the lowest structure,
and even at that it was multiple family. There was a 300-foot
separation. And we -- South Hampton was another one where we
addressed a concern that multiple family would not be up against
single family. So that's a legitimate concern where there is adjacent
development, but in this case there isn't any.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did you have something?
MR. NINO: I might also add, because I think
Commissioner Norris is talking about the increase in density, I think
it's important -- it's important to point out that when this PUD was
first approved, we didn't have a density rating system. We didn't
have the current growth management plan telling us all here is the
possible density that can be put in position A, position B, position C
depending upon its proximity to a density -- to an activity center,
the density bands, the in-fill propositions, the fronting on two or
more arterial roads. We didn't have all of that. So you really --
you really can't say that this is an increase because they were
playing under a different set of rules then.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. Just a minute, Mr.
Nino. They're permitted for, excuse me, 626 units, and it's not an
increase if they go to 800 you say?
MR. NINO: It's an increase, but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's not really.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's merely an illusion.
MR. NINO: If the PUD weren't there today -- if the PUD
weren't there today --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it is.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it is there today, and that's
-- that increase.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're increasing by a small
amount, but they're well within the margin that the density band from
the activity center allows them. Is that what we're trying to say?
MR. NINO: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've forgotten the question but
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is concerning the
density band that extends beyond the activity center. You remember we
have an interchange activity center there at Immokalee and 1-75, do we
not?
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But this is not part of it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. But this is within the
density band of that activity center? MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Does that density band
extend beyond this property, or does it lie within this property?
MR. NINO: It all lies within this property, the density
band.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The property to the west
of this particular piece, is any of that included in the density
band? I'm looking at the future density of the property to the west.
line.
west.
MR. NINO: I have to find the half-section line.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: Here's the section line. There's a section
You know we're dealing with a half a mile.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The section line is along the
MR. NINO: I guess the section line would be somewhere
in here (indicated). I don't think any land to the west of Carlton
Lakes falls within the density band.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we have property to the
western boundary that is going to be limited to 4 units per acre? MR. NINO: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason I ask that is
because Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner Norris with their vast,
vast years of history on this board, have expressed the concern over
adjacent properties and looking at internal uses and how they affect
the adjoining properties, and that question may have something to do
with -- with looking at the internal development pattern, again, only
how it applies to the external properties.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I tell you what, let's -- let's
-- do you all want to do a presentation, or are you here strictly to
answer questions or -- if you want to do a presentation, now would
probably be the appropriate time.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon Commissioners, Michael
Fernandez of Agnolli, Barber, and Brundage representing the
petitioner. A point of clarity first on the growth management plan
and activity centers. This particular property is in a very unique
situation in that two activity centers exist in close proximity to it,
and the activity center bands actually overlap the property so the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you want density from both of
that, is that what you -- no, just kidding.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, was one issue we brought up, but
we dismissed that.
MR. NINO: I think the question is that most of
Willoughby falls within the density band.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All of Willoughby falls within this same
density band as we do except it's coming from the other direction.
And, in fact, our property, like I said, is encumbered by both
overlays. And that activity center is coming from the intersection of
Immokalee and Airport Road.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they have the potential for
requesting up to 7 units per acre also? MR. NINO: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, they do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And, in fact, what we've done, although
we are agreeing to provide an interconnect should we dedicate our
roadways to the public, we've opted not to extend the opportunity to
take that one unit per acre. So, therefore, we have a base density of
4. The density band allows us 3, which is a total of 7. We're
assuming at this point no interconnects, so we're down to 6, which as
Mr. Nino said, would allow us to have 1,433 units. And to stay
underneath the DRI thresholds, as you pointed out, we're only seeking
the 800 units, which brings us to a density of 3.4 units per acre,
which is less than the base density that we would be allowed.
This particular PUD is an old one. Essentially it was
-- predated the growth management plan, and we are relooking at it
from every vantage point. Included in that is the -- one of the
rationale for changing the master plan was that the economic and
market forces are different nowadays. But just as importantly, the
environmental areas on this property have been impacted over a period
of time, and the environmental areas really haven't been diminished.
They've just shifted around. And our plan identified those new areas
and worked around them. And, in fact, there's two exhibits on the
board here to my left. One of them is our PUD master plan. The other
plan is the PSP, which is being processed concurrently and will be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
That is the stage where you start looking at issues of
compatibility of single family to multifamily. The PUD document where
we've gone and done as Mr. Nino says, what we have seen -- what we
have processed in recent times and seen other firms and developers
process in recent times is develop a PUD that sets the guidelines that
-- or the development standards between single family and multifamily
by providing appropriate buffers between the two. Therefore, you end
up with summary standards for all residential structures, what their
setbacks are in relationship to their property areas, also their
building heights. And then in addition to that, there's a stipulation
that says that the two will not be mixed. Obviously we're not going
to have single family immediately adjacent to multifamily without an
appropriate buffer, and that's handled through the development
standards. Those are in turn reviewed, as I said, in the PSP process,
which goes through the Planning Commission, which we're in the process
of doing.
If there's any other questions relative to density or to
the -- to that issue, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino, what happened to the
ST portion of the old PUD? Did all that land suddenly dry up? MR. NINO: It goes away.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It goes away?
MR. NINO: It goes away because the PUD defines and sets
aside these areas as tracted preserves that will become public lands.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that under conservation and
preservation areas in the existing document? MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have public speakers on
this, by the way? MR. NINO: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great.
MR. FERNANDEZ: If I may address that. The areas, the
environmental areas that were noted in the original PUD, having been
redefined, there's a commitment in the new PUD that says those will
and have been identified and will be completely retained. Those areas
were identified and the acreage identified as D-1 through D-5 for
cypress, D-6 through D-8 as wetland. In addition to the wetland areas
that we are keeping, we've also designated a couple of areas of upland
that we chose to -- one we chose to keep because of the height quality
and as an amenity to the development, the other one because it was
isolated in the northwest corner of the property between two wetlands,
and we didn't want to have to cut through to get to it, and we're
using that as part of our open space. So this project has been very
cognizant and very sympathetic to the environmental areas on the
property.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just can't do too well from
this black and white exhibit. I wonder if you would go there and just
tell us the color key on your master plan there. Is it basically
everything that's pale green, and then is tract A -- that's going to
be residential?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No. Essentially the plan on your -- the
colored plan is the preliminary subdivision plat. It is not the
master plan for the PUD.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's hard for me to follow this
to identify what all is A.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. In A you were able -- A was
inclusive of the residential tracts, the potential development tracts;
everything exclusive of A, the lakes and the Ds. I'll tell you the --
on the plan that's colored up, the light green are the environmental
areas that are being retained.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The dark green are -- the dark green --
this dark green and this dark green area here are the two upland areas
that are being retained. The light green areas are areas of wetland
that are being retained. The mid-green range are areas that are going
to be enhanced and probably used as partial mitigation for any
wetlands that may have been crossed. We do cross wetlands areas along
some roadways, and we'll be mitigating around, for instance, this
small wetland here. The area around it will also be mitigated.
Another important consideration of this project is that
it's very fortunate that it's setting the standard for the area.
There's no development right now, although the Regency PUD, which has
similar development standards for its development to the east, is not
in place yet. There's no development to the north. To the east
there's future Livingston Road corridor, which I believe is 200 or a
hundred foot -- 150 foot right of way. In addition to that there is a
strip of county property that juts into the property here that was the
old well field for Pelican Bay. And that is putting an additional
buffer between this development and any development to the east. And
as you can see by the green areas, the substantial portion of the
wetland areas are along the perimeter of the property, again, acting
as a significant buffer.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So just for my understanding, the
bright orange is commercial -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The bright orange is a 7-acre tract,
commercial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there's a recreation parcel?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the recreation parcel, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the sort of pale yellow or
beige, that's the residential, and it will either be single or multi?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. Those are the
residential tracts.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have anything else in your
presentation, or do you just want to answer questions?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't have anything else. I'd be
happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing on
it and entertain any further questions or a motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'll move approval of the
-- of the petition with the stipulations that the staff has suggested
and -- and nothing new. I'm happy with it with the way it's
proposed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not overly concerned with the
concerns that Commissioner Matthews and I have voiced in the past on
this particular PUD as far as the specificity of how much is single
family and multifamily because, as Mr. Nino pointed out, there's --
it's not like we're coming up against another section of residential
that's already established. But I really don't see any incentive for
this board of commissioners to grant additional density when it's
already approved for 626 units. I don't see the incentive at all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would you care to address that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know -- again, what we were
looking at is the potential for density there. The County established
a density band so that they would be appropriately served. The
density should be higher near the larger arterials, which this is, of
course, at the intersection of Livingston and Immokalee Road. And as
the density goes away from here, we'll see that lessen. So in
actuality as this project will probably be developed, the higher
density, the multifamily area, will probably be toward the south of
the area and the less density multifamily -- or single family will be
to the north, so you'll have a natural gradient.
The major incentive for seeking the density, in fact,
encouraging, I think, the density around these activity centers, is
that it's the appropriate use of the infrastructure that's already in
place. Years ago when this PUD was approved there was not water and
sewer that we have there now today. In fact, the previous PUD was for
a package plant. So it's an -- efficiency and infrastructure is the
reason for the density bands, and that's what we're looking to see.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that, but that's not
really to the heart of my question. From the County's perspective
it's even more efficient to not -- as far as our infrastructure is
concerned, to not have the density increased over what's already
approved.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We just finished doing a paper for the
DEP permitting, and actually when we did that analysis the feedback
that we're getting is that they would like to see it -- higher density
occur in those areas where infrastructure is because it's more
efficient. Otherwise as our population increases, it's pushing the
development of parcels prematurely out further and further, and it's
also -- the low density is also going to encourage us to develop more
land area. So it's -- actually from DEP's standpoint and from the
environmental standpoint, they would like to see us develop closer to
the density that's allowed in those activity center areas. It's also
significantly more efficient from a county standpoint of
infrastructure. It's more cost effective to serve this type of
development than one if we spread it all out and did several different
developments with that density further on in away from the public
roadways.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock. I'm sorry,
Commissioner Norris, did you have --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm glad you brought up the DEP,
because if they have their way and get their wishes, then 85 percent
of Collier County will be in the public domain and will be
undevelopable, which my point is that all the 15 percent that's left
over, if it's developed at a lower density, means ultimately the less
people we'll have here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the other hand, Commissioner
Norris, I don't see how we can not grant a request that's actually
under the base density of what the growth management plan says. I
feel -- I don't feel that we should oppose this project because it was
zoned at a much lower density. I think up to four is an acceptable
density in this area. Actually it's a preferred density over what
could be requested. And I almost wish your PSP could be your site
plan, and I understand why not, but I'm comfortable with that type of
plan, and I -- with that I will second Ms. Hac'Kie's motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm obviously going to
vote against the motion because I don't see any incentive either to
increase the density of -- of this project. I mean we're -- we're
looking at a buildout that says we're going to have 500,000 people
here in Collier County on this magical 15 percent of the 2,000 square
miles available. And if this PUD request is approved, we just
increased that 500,000 174. I don't see any need to do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It takes four votes to pass this
item, correct, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, we appear to
have at least two commissioners who plan on voting against it, so
perhaps you'd like to amend your motion in some way.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd entertain a proposed
amendment, but I don't have an idea.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
of Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
Maybe we should direct this --
I'll make a motion. Please.
Are you withdrawing your motion?
I'll withdraw my motion in favor
I make a motion that we grant the
request -- grant all requests with the exception of the increased
density and leaving -- specifically leaving the total number of
dwelling units at 626.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Again for the county attorney --
it's going to be my role, I guess, is -- do we need to make some
findings on the issue? Are there specific findings that need to be
made to address the denial?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not a denial.
MR. CUYLER: A find -- a finding that you could make is
that although the density band provides for a higher density, the
density as suggested in the motion is, nevertheless, consistent with
the comprehensive plan. It's up to you obviously to determine through
your motion whether that's where you want to focus your density or
whether you want to approve a lesser density. Obviously that's not an
entitlement particularly in this case where you have an existing land
use at a certain density. You can make a finding that that is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and that you'll grant it up to
that point and not beyond.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's exactly the finding that I
made when I formulated my motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for that
motion? Just a second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. We have a second. Go
ahead.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The petitioner would request --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, if you would identify
yourself.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez, Agnoli, Barber, and
Brundage representing the petitioner. The petitioner would request a
continuance until the next meeting so that they may consider what
their potential options are relative to the density. Otherwise a vote
now would mean they couldn't come back for a period of time, so they'd
like an opportunity to think about it and perhaps develop other
arguments or come back and request lesser density.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, it's unusual to grant a
continuance so that they can develop other arguments. We do have a
motion on the floor, so unless there's some interest from the Board,
I'm not sure we're going to entertain that. I mean if there was some
new information that we anticipated, but if it's merely to make new
arguments, it seems a little out of the ordinary.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, what you can do if you wish
to is table that motion, to leave it as an existing motion for two
weeks if you wanted to see if they can provide you any additional
information or any clarifications or suggestions or whatever. I know
that's unusual, but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any interest from the
Board in tabling the motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why
they would need an additional period of time to request us to grant
them reduced density when that's exactly what the motion entails.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a concern in this in
that the density that they're requesting being less than 4 units per
acre less than the base density gross, by us saying the -- stating
that we don't want to grant that simply because we don't want to add
more numbers in that area or we don't want more population in the area
in essence gives us the basis to refuse any fezone within the urban
area that increases density above what is currently there, whether it
be agricultural land, whether it be anything else, and I'm concerned.
We have a base density. We established that for a
reason. They're beneath the base density, and I would just encourage
my fellow commissioners to consider that as if what we are doing is a
precedent based on not wanting to increase population. I think that's
a bit on the thin side. I think this has merit to its request, and
that -- that's just -- that's my opinion so --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, this decision doesn't
set any legal precedent, does it?
MR. CUYLER: It doesn't set any legal precedent. I
usually take the position that you set your own precedent, but
sometimes courts disagree with me on that point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To table or not to table, is that
the question?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. We have a motion on the
floor from Mr. Norris.
MR. CUYLER: The one thing that distinguishes this from
other types of land uses is you do have a viable economic residential
use at -- at that density. Again, it's a policy decision and land use
decision as to whether you're going to increase that, and you find the
other things in the PUD to have enough merit to in some way counter --
counterbalance the increase in density.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, we've got a motion on the
floor and a second for that motion. Let's see where we go with it,
and it's if approved, fine. If not, then perhaps there won't be any
change at all, or perhaps there will be yet another motion.
All in favor of the motion state aye. All those
opposed? Motion fails with a 3-2 majority needing 4 votes.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, Commissioner Hancock opposed. Unless there is a
substitute motion, then the changes of PUD 94-87- -- whatever this
item is will not be approved in any way, shape, or manner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A point of information, if the
petitioner -- without resolution, does he have the ability to withdraw
and come back to this petition without the six-month time frame, I
believe it is?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: He can. I guess the question's -- it would
have to be readvertised. I assume staff would regard it as still in
the system. He would just withdraw it for purposes of public hearing
at this time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can -- could -- would it be
appropriate for the Board to move to continue the petition for two
weeks?
MR. CUYLER: You could certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'd like to make that
motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
I'm going to vote against it because I don't see -- there's no new
information that's going to be provided.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's nothing -- just because
you don't agree with the vote is not a reason to continue the item, so
I'll call the question.
All those in favor of the motion state aye. All those
opposed? Motions fails 2 to 3. Either the item's going to be lost,
or we can approve it in some form.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do -- do you have some kind of
density proposal you might want to make?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The -- can we have a moment to confer,
please?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Surely. I want to thank Mr.
Dotrill for putting together the short agenda today.
MR. DORRILL: Merely for what it's worth, Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Cuyler and I have attended over 2,000 of these meetings between
the two of us. If we sit here and get a little glazy-eyed this time
of the afternoon you'll understand.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you keep up? Do you know an
actual running total?
MR. CUYLER: I think it's 2,001.
MR. FERNANDEZ: 700 units would be acceptable as still
below the density threshold, would perhaps still allow the developer
to work within the parameters that they're seeking on this particular
project. Although it does represent a net increase, I think the basis
perhaps for allowing the additional density is that the environmental
areas have been modified, that there is more land available for
development, and we've utilized it in a creative and in an efficient
manner that warrants that additional density.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: By the way, Commissioner Hac'Kie,
would you like to -- never mind, sorry. Just got lost mentally there
for a minute.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
the 700 club?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Maybe I'm with you.
Is there a motion in regard to
I'm going to move to approve.
Second.
Any discussion?
HR. CUYLER: Hr. Chairman, could I just ask a question
of Mr. Nino? If we plug 700 into the PUD, that works? MR. NINO: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect that he
responded, "Oh, yes."
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- just one more question.
And just forgive me, but it's part of my learning curve for learning
how to do this job. I as a property owner would think that I have
rights to base density and that if a commission is going to find that
I'm not entitled to base density, that they would make some sort of a
record about the reason -- that the roles would be reversed here.
Instead of their having to convince us that base density -- that less
than base density is appropriate, that we would have to explain why
the base density that we've established is inappropriate instead of
just more people is bad. So -- so I'm back to that question about a
finding. I'm -- I'm confused about what the legal standard is here.
MR. CUYLER: From my point of view I would encourage you
to, if you're going to deny a petition, make all the findings that you
can possibly make on the issue. I think there is some substance to
what you're saying. There's a question, and there's going to be a
question as to what your entitlements are with regard to density. If
you're going to grant less than base, I think, yes, it's preferable to
make findings. I think in this particular case the finding that
Commissioner Norris has made is that there's no particular reason to
increase it just because the law allows us to increase it. But that
was with the previous one with regard to 800, not with 700, so I have
to wait and see. But if there's any additional findings anyone could
suggest or would like to make, I would encourage you to do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino, under the current PUD
ST, how many single family dwelling units are included in that?
MR. NINO: There is -- there are no specific numbers of
single family or multiple family proposed in this PUD.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not -- in the change there
is not, in the previous one, In the presently existing one, do you
know that, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. NINO: I have to correct that statement. There
aren't -- there aren't numbers, but there are acreages. Single family
detached, 35.5 acres; zero lot line housing, which is single family,
17.5 acres; cjuster housing, 25 acres; multifamily housing, 28 acres.
And that represents all of the development slated for residential
development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's in the presently
existing --
MR. NINO: That's in the current PUD document.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that does not total quite a
hundred acres; is that correct? MR. NINO: 105.5 acres.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 105 you say?
MR. NINO: 105.5 is my addition.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, 53, 88, and 17, 105. And
under the PUD application we're talking a hundred and -- is it 152
acres?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner Matthews, if I may
clarify. The -- the tables aren't -- they would be very hard to
relate one to one. In the original PUD, for instance, they segregated
the roads out from it. Our road structure, because of the format
that's used, is included within the developable acreage, within our
developable acreage as well we have additional lakes. As you can see
from the PUD master plan, you'll see that the lake areas that are
shown on it are less than what is now shown on the PSP map, and that's
because within the residential developable acres you actually have
more lake so that unfortunately there -- a comparison between the two
is difficult at best.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In an effort to shepherd us
along, I'm going to remind you we have a motion on the floor and a
second right now in favor of the project with a total of 700 units.
Further discussion on that particular motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just -- just to clarify that, the
total number is 700.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That was the motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's still 74 units more than
what they have currently and -- and I -- I hear from the people who
live around Carlton Lakes. I hear from them regularly. And the
existing PUD, while I know they have certain acreage that is allocated
to certain types of -- of dwelling units, and I understand the market
design and the market demands, and I understand those concepts. But
we've also had other PUDs here in the last two years who are trying to
meet those market demands. And they do it by amending their PUDs, not
by asking for some sort of blanket, well, we want 800 units, but we
really can't tell you where they're going to be, and we really can't
tell you whether we're going to have cjuster homes or single-family
homes or multifamily. We just can't tell you all that right now, but
trust us. We'll do it. I -- I just have great difficulty with that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner Matthews, if I might
interject, the model PUD document that was designed and developed by
Collier County and approved by the staff and, I believe, by the
resolution council asked you specifically to designate bubble diagrams
such as the one that we've developed here. This is a consistent -- in
fact, if you were to compare it to the model, you would find that it
is almost identical. We are following the guidelines that were set up
by this commission and by staff, and we are encouraged -- in fact, we
are encouraged to do this exact type of development, this type of
planning document. Then we are encouraged to come in the PSP and have
a more defined one such as the one on the left. That's what we're
asked to do. That's the guidelines that we're given and say, here,
use this as your base material and conform to it, and that's all we've
done here. We -- ours is no more, as you were saying, vague, than the
one that's within the document that we are given as a guide in our --
in our quest to develop something that will be approved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, all those in
favor of the motion, please state aye. All those opposed? Was that a
nay from you?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion fails 3 to 2. Unless
something comes up quickly, going once, going twice.
MR. CLAUSSEN: My name is Bob Claussen. I'm the
developer. What we -- I just want to tell you what has gone on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before you go too far, you need
to come up with an alternative because we voted and turned down 800.
We voted and turned down 700. And I think we're all aware of where
we're at here and appreciate what you're trying to do, but if you have
an alternative, let's try to do that and --
MR. CLAUSSEN: Okay. The problem is that if -- if we
don't get something approved, then we have to wait six months. So I
mean it's kind of like our backs are up against the wall.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd be willing to reconsider my
vote on Commissioner Norris' motion, and then at least you will not
have completely wasted your time. You won't have increased your
density, but you'll have gotten everything else you asked for.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was just going to make a
motion to continue two weeks and give them time to work it out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, if you would
like to make a motion, then we may get four votes for that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you'll accept this motion -- I
will make a motion that we grant -- we approve this PUD amendment with
the exception that we leave the total number of dwelling units at
626.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to second that,
Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll second it to get it on the
floor. Further discussion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that acceptable to the -- I
heard a frustrated yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know if the economics work.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We've got to be very careful,
only have one person speaking at a time or she can't take minutes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The answer is yes to that question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the motion, if I may
understand it, is to approve everything as proposed except for the
increase in density.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The numbers will stay at 626.
All those in favor of the motion state aye. Motion carries 5-0.
Thanks.
Item #1284
ORDINANCE 94-61 RE PETITION PUD-94-5 DWIGHT NADEAU OF HCANLY, ASHER 7
ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTATING CRYSTAL LAKE JOINT VENTURE REQUESTING
A REZONE FROM A AND PUD TO PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A
TTRVC/PARK TRAILER DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL LAKE PUD ON THE
EAST SIDE OF CR 951 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD - ADOPTED WITH
STIPULATIONS IN THE PUD
12-B-4, PUD-94-5. Hr. Saadeh, how are you?
HR. SAADEH: Good, thank you. Again, good afternoon,
Commissioners. For the record, Sam Saadeh from current planning for
petition PUD 94-5. Petitioner is requesting to fezone the subject
property from A to PUD for a TTRPC and park trailer development to be
known as Crystal Lakes PUD. This proposed rezoning will allow the
petitioner to add a 20-acre parcel to the existing Crystal Lake PUD to
be used for recreational vehicle storage. The proposed parcel will
fall under the recreational land use designation provided for by the
Crystal Lake PUD document. No additional RV park trailer lots are
proposed as part of this rezoning petition. Therefore, the overall
density will be reduced from 3.28 to 2.89 RV park trailer units per
acre.
The proposed 20-acre addition is zoned agricultural. It
is the Crystal Lake sewage treatment plant. The land surrounding the
property is partially developed with acreage lots which maintain
agricultural zoning. This petition is deemed consistent with the
future land use element of the growth management plan and is in
compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code. The Collier
County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on October 20th,
1994, and unanimously 8 to 0 recommended approval subject to the
stipulations incorporated into the PUD document. No one spoke in
favor or opposition of the proposed petition at the public hearing.
However, staff did receive two letters of opposition. I'll answer any
questions.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Saadeh, you said that the PUD
amendment reduces density that's already been approved, and really
they're looking for a storage area.
MR. SAADEH: That is correct. The 20-acre site is
strictly for storage. Therefore, the overall density would be
reduced.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What kind of storage?
MR. SAADEH: Storage of recreational vehicles that
typically these people have.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Outdoor storage?
MR. SAADEH: Yes, it's by their PUD. It's landscaped,
and it will be outdoor storage for recreational vehicles.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nadeau, do you have a
presentation, or are you here primarily to answer questions?
MR. NADEAU: For the record my name is Dwight Nadeau of
McAnly, Asher representing the Crystal Lake joint venture in this
petition. I did have a presentation, but for brevity I'm sure you
would like to answer -- ask me a few questions. I might preempt one
by saying that the storage area is for the exclusive use of the
residents of the Crystal Lake RV Resort. We've had some buffering
conditions and lighting conditions brought forward by the Planning
Commission which were incorporated in the PUD document, and other than
that I might be happy to entertain any other questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions for the
petitioner? Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you briefly explain the
buffer for us?
MR. NADEAU: Well, the buffering in accordance with the
PUD document is roughly 5 feet around the perimeter of the entire
project and would be done in conformance with land development codes'
80 percent capacity requirements. We'd also have no lights glaring
onto the residents in Crystal Lake or adjacent properties.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. This is -- when you -- when
you said 5 feet around, then you're talking specifically about the
storage area?
MR. NADEAU: Oh, no. The entire PUD has --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What do you have additionally for
the storage area?
MR. NADEAU: In the storage area we're not proposing
anything additional. But given that we would not want to have the
residents of Crystal Lake impaired by the storage of vehicles, the
developer will be conscientious in that buffering.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Question. This -- how large an
area is this?
MR. NADEAU: It's 20 acres, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And this is to the northeast of
Crystal Lakes, on the northeast corner of it?
MR. SAADEH: Yes, Commissioner Matthews. You can see on
that site plan.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And 951 is -- right,
okay. That's what I thought. There's been a concern for a number of
years, a couple years at least, about the northern end of Crystal Lake
and the berm that goes along there causing water drainage difficulties
MR. NADEAU: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- for the people who are to the
west -- east of you, I'm sorry, east -- MR. NADEAU: All right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- in that it causes -- because
the berm is high enough that it causes the water to flow around to the
east of Crystal Lake and essentially flooding along that eastern
portion to the east of -- of your berm -- MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and that it's interrupting
the natural sheet flow.
MR. NADEAU: Well, it may be interrupting the natural
sheet flow. The entire development was permitted by the South Florida
Water Management District. But to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You used to be able to pump, and
you can't now.
MR. NADEAU: Pump. Water withdrawal for agricultural
purposes?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. You used to be able to pump
water away from that northern berm into the canal on 951, and that
permit --
MR. NADEAU: Long ways.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- was withdrawn a short while
ago?
MR. NADEAU: But if you have a concern about the berm
that goes around the existing sewage treatment plant, that will be
removed when the sewage treatment plant is removed and the development
is hooked up to the central sewer conveyance system on 951.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess what I'm concerned about
is this 20 acres jutting out to the north. MR. NADEAU: Yes, this is --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that going to be bermed as
well?
MR. NADEAU: No. The existing berms that are there now
around the sewage treatment plant will be removed.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, the berm around --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The sewage treatment plant and
that side are the same.
MR. NADEAU: There is no berm on the north part of the
20 acres. That's all natural land.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're much higher, though,
aren't you, than the land to the north of you?
MR. NADEAU: No. It hasn't been artificially filled.
It's natural ground in the northerly 20 acres other than the fact that
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I'm not talking about the
northern 20 acres. I'm talking about the existing Crystal Lake. It's
higher than the ground around it.
MR. NADEAU: Well, pads -- yes, I'm sure pads were
filled for the development.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I'm talking about.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And the natural sheet
flow is coming down hitting that northern edge of the pad, and it's
forcing the water off to the east to flow down and around.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: I will have to assume that that is correct
based upon your contention, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I wish John Bolt was here
because we've talked about this one quite a bit. That 20 acres, are
you going to do any compaction on that and build that up also?
MR. NADEAU: Not -- not beyond what is -- when we remove
this storage -- the sewage treatment plant facility, we'll be filling
in the ponds, the perc ponds. We may be laying a course of lime rock
down. The existing berms around the sewage treatment plant that are
required by DEP, previously DNR -- or DER will be removed. So any of
that impedance of overland flow would be resolved in that area. At
the present time there's no plans to do anything north of the sewage
treatment plant site.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just questioning that you
have this 20 acres of land jutting out to the north. Is it going to
increase the water problems that the people to the east of you are
currently having?
MR. NADEAU: Not being a water management engineer and
being on the public record, I'm not going to respond to that
negatively or favorably. We would not augment or increase the
problems that exist by the proposed land use change.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Saadeh, have we looked at
that problem?
MR. SAADEH: All review agencies have responded
favorably, and we have conditions that are incorporated in the PUD
document, so we don't have any concern as far as the reviewing
agency. They did not have any concern.
MR. NADEAU: I will turn to the staff report, though.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just don't want to exacerbate
a problem that's already a problem. I'm sorry for delaying this, but
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I mean that's a real
issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I hear you correctly that
there are existing berms on this 20 acres that by virtue of your using
it as storage will be removed?
MR. NADEAU: That is correct. The sewage treatment
plant site has to be contained pursuant to DEP permitting
requirements.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So conceivably those berms, they
could be diverting waters at this point -- MR. NADEAU: Conceivably, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and if they're moved, they may
not then. Again, we're talking theoretical. I understand you're not
a water management engineer, but there are berms there now that are
going to be gone?
MR. NADEAU: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since berms impede water flow,
berms should -- their removal should make the water flow.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So let me clarify this in
my own mind. In the document here, the -- this 20-acre parcel is what
your package plant is on?
MR. NADEAU: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it's currently bermed and
you're going to take the berms away? MR. NADEAU: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: While we have this opportunity, I
am told there are no public speakers, so we will close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion
carries 5-0.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 94-818 AMENDING RESOLUTION 94-425 CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PETITION V-94-7 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The next item, 13-A-l, this is
simply correcting a scribner's error, or did I skip one?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is the one you were supposed
to skip.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
MR. SAADEH: Again, for the record, Sam Saadeh. If you
have any questions, I'll answer, but it's a scribner's error.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
There's a motion --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And a second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- and a second. All those in
favor of the motion to approve this item state aye. MR. SAADEH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Motion carries 5-0.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 94-819 RE PETITION CU-94-18 R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG,
VANASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING NAPCO HOLDINGS, INC.
REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 2, 4 AND 6 OF SECTION 2.2.12.3 OF THE C-1/T
ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF
U.S. 41 AND CYPRESS WOODS DRIVE - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
Petition CU-94-18, Bruce. Good afternoon.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bryan Milk. I'm presenting petition CU-94-18. The
petitioner is seeking conditional uses 2, 4 and 6 of the C-1/T zoning
district for commercial banks and savings institutions, offices for
doctors of medicine and health services, and to increase the existing
building height from 35 feet to 50 feet.
The existing property is located at the southeast corner
of U.S. 41 and Cypress Woods Drive. It currently is undeveloped.
Cypress Woods Drive separates the parcel into two parcels, that being
block A and block B. Petitioner is proposing a 4-story 50,000 square
foot professional office building on block B with parking. Across the
street would be the employee parking lot. The property to the north
and to the south is currently zoned C-4. It's primarily developed of
one- and two-story retail business service oriented businesses.
Property to the east is a developed single-family RSF-4 neighborhood.
The property to the west is currently the city limit boundary for the
City of Naples. All that property is zoned highway commercial. It
basically limits the height to 35 feet.
Currently there is the Northern Trust Bank building
located at the northwest corner of Park Shore Drive and 41. That's
been approved at a building height of 4 stories or a maximum of 50
feet. The Trianon Square office building at the southwest corner of
Park Shore and 41 has been approved at a height of 45 feet. The
lumber supply business located just south of the subject property is
approximately 45 feet in height. The commercial C-4 district
currently allows 100 feet in height.
This property was the subject of a zoning teevaluation
back in 1991 which rezoned the property from C-4 to C-1/T. The
petitioner at that time failed to file the appropriate paperwork and
never did get a compatibility exception. The Planning Commission
heard and approved this 8 to 0. There were no letters of approval or
objection.
We did have a fairly lengthy discussion with a couple of
the residential owners in the immediate neighborhood to describe the
project, to look at the architectural renderings, to look at the
access onto Cypress Woods and U.S. 41, to discuss the buffering, the
parking. That seemed to satisfy everyone at that time. I have not
currently heard from those people. Staff recommends approval. If I
can answer any questions, I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One quick question. You
mentioned to the east is single-family. Will that 50 foot have any
impact? How much space is in between where the building will likely
be?
MR. MILK: Approximately 200 feet plus.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any buffering?
MR. MILK: The buffering is a 15-foot landscape buffer
with a 6-foot high architecturally designed wall or opaque wooden
fence.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question, and this is in your
opinion, Mr. Milk. If the building was at 35 feet at a minimum
setback from the RSF-4, would it be more or less visually apparent
than at its current location at 50 feet? I guess what I'm asking is
can the residents see it more or less with the 50 feet?
MR. MILK: Well, it would -- actually from aesthetic
standpoint would be 15 feet from the side yard property line.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it could be 35 high but 15 --
within 15 of the property line? MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And instead it's proposed to be
50 high --
MR. MILK: Let me refrain it. 25 feet away. 25 feet
from Cypress Woods and 25 feet from the RSF-4 district. Currently
lots 1 and 46 aren't developed. They are single-family lots that abut
the northern block A and 46 to the south block B. They are currently
undeveloped. Again, with that buffer and with the current setbacks if
allowed to develop, they could develop within 25 feet of that site or
of the residentially zoned property. Again, they're set back at the
intersection of 41 and Cypress Woods at approximately 4 stories not to
exceed 50 feet. I think that impact is less than they could develop
currently with the development regulations as currently exist.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did you understand the answer to
the question, Tim? I didn't and I need to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I did.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could you help me?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did, and maybe in Mr.
Anderson's presentation I'm sure he was going to hit on this, but the
fact that the building is going to be 15 feet higher than C-1/T
allows, it looks like it's been moved as far away from the RSF-4 as
possible so that visually it's less apparent than it would have been
had it been built at 35 feet at the allowed setback. That's -- that
is my understanding in looking at this now. It's just asking if that
was a correct assumption.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. MILK: Let's put it this way, the driveway cut off
Cypress is about 320 feet from the intersection of U.S. 41. There's
another 200 feet at least of the eastern residential property
boundary. So in essence, it's 200 feet away from that residential
tract as a setback. Otherwise if they were to build a 35-foot
structure, it could be built 25 feet away.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see,, thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Milk.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Anderson, you're certainly
welcome to do a complete presentation. I don't hear overwhelming
objection from the Board at this time. So if there appears that there
is, I'll give you an opportunity to go back and provide what you need
to for the record, but otherwise -- are there speakers on this?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If not, with that caveat that we
may reopen, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve petition
CU-94-18.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion please state aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I have one question?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oops, certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The architectural renderings, Mr.
Anderson, that we have, is this just informational, or is this the
actual --
MR. ANDERSON: This is what will be built, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
record.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
record. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
And that's now part of the
I wanted you to say that on the
I'm ready.
Call the question.
All those in favor, state aye.
Thanks, Bruce.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 94-820 RE PETITION CU-94-19, JERRY NEAL OF THE OFFICE OF
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT REPRESENTING SHERIFF DON HUNTER REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE PER SECTION 2.6.9.2 OF THE LDC FOR A JUVENILE BOOT CAMP
FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON STOCKADE ROAD - ADOPTED WIHT
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 13-A-3, petition CU-94-19. This
is an item -- just the sheriff's juvenile ranch that we had already
approved anyway. This is going through the formality of making sure
it's zoned appropriately; is that correct?
MR. NINO: Yes. I will pass up the aerial photograph
which very well iljustrates the area.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there anybody on the Board who
has questions on this? And I realize that the two new folks didn't go
through this last time.
MR. NINO: The Planning Commission has reviewed it and
unanimously recommended its approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I recommend continuity, and I
have no questions.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
Are there -- we will close the public hearing. There's a motion --
there's a second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Double second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion
state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that we move on to Board of
County Commissioners' communications. Commissioner Norris, anything
to share with us today?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. I'd like to welcome
the new commissioners on board officially.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
the old commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
here too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're glad you finally get to be
Commissioner Hancock, anything?
Just happy to be here.
Good to be alive. Commissioner
Happy to be here.
Commissioner Matthews?
Well, yeah. I'm happy you're
That wasn't very convincing,
Bettye. You looked at her, and you didn't look at me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's touchy.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just wanted to say that I had
hoped to or planned to give this board an update on the privatization
plus committee today, but Jennifer Everton asked me to give you an
update at the strategic planning meeting coming up on Tuesday, so I
delay giving that update until them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I tell you what, at 4:35 p.m. no
hard feelings about putting it off to Tuesday. I too would like to
welcome -- enjoyed the first day very much and looking forward to the
next two years. With that, Miss Brighton, may we be excused?
*** Commissioner Matthews moved, seconded by Commissioner
Norris and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 94-800 GRANTING PRELIHINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF NORTH BAY
PLAZA - WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 94-801 GRANTING PRELIHINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF KETCH CAY
AT WINDSTAR UNIT ONE - WITH STIPULATION AND LETTER OF CREDIT
See Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 84-802 GRANTING PRELIHINARY ACCPETANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF KETCH CAY
AT WINDSTAR UNIT TWO - WITH STIPULATION AND LETTER OF CREDIT
Item #16A4
See Pages
SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR KETCH CAY AT WINDSTAR, UNITS ONE AND
TWO - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
LETTER OF CREDIT ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.518
SAFE HARBOR LOCATED IN SEC. 26, T495, R26E
Item #16A6
See Pages
RESOLUTION 94-803 APPROVING FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SILVER
LAKES PHASE 2A AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - WITH STIPULATIONS, CASH BOND
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16A7
See Pages
SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR SILVER LAKES, PHASE TWO-A - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 94-804 DEFERRING 100e OF THE IHPACT FEES FOR A 73 UNIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO BE BUILT BY JASMINE CAY ASSOCIATES, LTD.
FROM LIBRARY SYSTEMS, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, ROAD EMERGENCY
MEDICAL, AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES FOR JASMINE CAY
APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
Item #16A9
See Pages
APPROVAL OF RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF HUNTINGTON WITH STIPULATIONS
AND LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16A10
See Pages
RESOLUTION 94-805 GRANTING PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF PALOHINO
VILLAGE - WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16All
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR PALOHINO VILLAGE - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
PETITION AV-94-008 VACATING A PORTION OF AN ACCESS AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT BY QUITCLAIM DEED BETWEEN PELICAN BAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT,
GRANTOR AND ASSOCIATES OF NAPLES, LTD., GRANTEE FOR PROPERTY IN SECTION
4, T495, R25E, COCOBAY, PELICAN BAY
See Pages
Item #16El
RESOLUTION 94-806 ESTABLISHING THREE PAY TITLES AND REVIEWING THE
SALARY RANGE ASSIGNMENT OF TWO CURRENT PAY TITLES WITHIN THE COHMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
See Pages
Item #16E2
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BONDS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
See Pages
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 94-807 CANCELLING CURRENT TAXES UPON LAND ACQUIRED FOR
PUBLIC USE ON A PORTION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS BEAR'S PAW COUNTRY CLUB
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 5,130 SQUARE FEET
See Pages
Item #16E4
RESOLUTION 94-808 APPROVING THE ASSIGNMENT OF EASEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
SOUTHAMPTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND TAYLOR WOODROW COMHUNITIES
See Pages
Item #16E5
RESOLUTION 94-809 CANCELLING CURRENT TAXES UPON LAND ACQUIRED FOR
PUBLIC USE FOR PROPERTY SITUATED IN SECTION 34, T49S, R26E, KNOWN AS
SHERWOOD PARK PUD
Item #16H1
See Pages
RESOLUTION 94-810 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PERPETUAL
RIGHT-OF-WAY, UTILITY, DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS, TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS OR FEE SIMPLE TITLE BY GIFT OR PURCHASE WHICH
ACQUISITIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS OF C.R. 864
(RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD) FROM U.S. 41 TO POLLY AVENUE
Item #16H2
See Pages
RESOLUTION 94-811 SUPPORTING THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL REVEGETATION
AND STABILIZATION PLAN AND DESIGNATING THE COLLIER SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE PROJECT FUNDING
REQUEST
Item #16H3
See Pages
FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF A NEW WATER SUPPLY FOR THE
NCRWTP EXPANSION
Item #16H4
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT
OF $108,516.00 FOR THE SANITARY SEWER AND ELECTRIC LINE IMPROVEMENTS AT
THE CLAM PASS PARK
See Pages
Item #16H5
BID #94-2293 VANDERBILT BEACH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RAMPS TO NAPLES
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES D/B/A NAPLES DOCK AND MARINE SERVICES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $21,265.60
Item #16H6
SIX MONTH LEASE WITH TEN THOUSAND ISLAND AERO TROUS AT EVERGLADES
AIRPARK TO PROVIDE SCENIC AIRCRAFT TOURS FOR A TOTAL A_MOUNT OF $175.00
See Pages
Item #16H7
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD AND EXPENDITURE BUDGETS
FOR OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 1994 IN FISCAL YEAR
1995 IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $24,742,086.15
Item #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence presented to the Board
of County Commissioners was filed and/or referred to the various
departments:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1988 TAX ROLL
NO. DATE
322 11/7/94
1994 TAX ROLL
21-24 11/2/94
32 11/2/94
37-38 11/3/94
40-41 11/7/94
Item #16K1
STATUS OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS' COHPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES, CHAPTER
189 REQUIREMENTS
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 4:32 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
TIHOTHY J. CONSTANTINE, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY:
Christine E. Whitfield and Barbara A. Donovan