BCC Minutes 01/11/2000 RJanuary 11, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 11, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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 9:00 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F' of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRWOMAN:
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
James D. Carter
.ALSO PRESENT:
Michael McNees, Assistant County
Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page I
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 11, 2000
9 ~ 00 a.m.
NOTICEs ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA
ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER ~PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU
ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) ??4-8380! ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12~00 NOON TO 1800 P.M.
1
January 11, 2000
INVOCATION - Father Tim Navin, St. Peter the Apostle
Catholic Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ae
December 14, 1999 - Regular Meeting
December 15, 1999 - Special Meeting
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1)
Proclamation congratulating Ronald L. Scott on
being named "1999 Veteran of the Year." To be
accepted by Ronald L. Scott
2)
Proclamation proclaiming the week of January
16-22, 2000 as Purple Martin Week. To be
accepted by Mr. Carter Smith, President/Purple
Martin Society of Collier County
3)
Proclamation proclaiming week of January 17,
2000 as Collier County Safe Boating Week. To
be accepted by Mr. Randy Ward, President/Marine
Industries Association of Collier County, Inc.
4)
Proclamation honorably recognizing the late
David Chronister. To be accepted by Mrs. David
Chronister
s)
Proclamation proclaiming week of January 16 -
22, 2000 be designated as Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Week. To be accepted by Mr. James
Whittaker, Chairperson, Martin Luther King Day
Committee, NAACP and Ms. Kim Long, Education
Chairperson, NAACP
B. SERVICE AWARDS
1)
~.)
3)
4)
Peter Kraley, Veteran Services - 5 Years
Deborah Preston, Comprehensive Planning - 5
Years
Karen Kocses, Human Resources - 10 Years
Robert Stringer, Inspections - 10 Years
2
Janua~ 1 I, 2000
5) Eric Schramm, Inspections - 10 Years
PRESENTATIONS
Recommendation to recognize Elida Valdez,
Traffic Technician I, Transportation/Traffic
Operations Department, as Employee of the Month
for January 2000.
SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
l)
Presentation of results of a survey of property
and business owners adjacent to C.R. and S.R.
951 with respect to a street name change and
consideration to direct staff to draft a
resolution to adopt a street name change from
both the State and County owned segment's of
Route 951.
2)
Request by Richard J. Nogaj, representing
Harvest for Humanity for a waiver of all fees
associated with that development.
3)
Proposal to prepare regulations to ensure that
properties in North Naples (Sections 18 and 19,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East) are developed
in a coordinated manner with regard to public
roads, storm drainage, water , and sewer
utilities.
4)
To provide report on departmental requirements
for increased proactive sign enforcement and to
amend the budget to implement outlined needs.
5)
Consideration of a draft response to the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) final
report.
6)
Endorse the Wilson Miller scope of work for the
Immokalee area and direct staff to negotiate
additional consulting services with Dover, Kohl
3
January I 1, 2000
and Partners to fulfill the Final Order
requirements for the Collier County Rural and
Agricultural Assessment.
7)
Recommendation to approve the work plan and
budget for implementing the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Redevelopment Plan and to consider
including the Immokalee Urban Area as one of
the component areas of the Community
Redevelopment Agency.
8)
Interlocal Agreement with the City of Naples to
fund a consultant study challenging the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's revised flood
insurance rate maps.
PUBLIC WORKS
CONTINUED FROM 12/14/99 AND FURTHER CONTINUED
UNTIL 1/25/00: Present the results of staff
and consultant investigations into the
extension of Piper Boulevard Easterly to Strand
Boulevard.
a)
Approval of the Median Landscape Beautification
Agreement with 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture.
3)
Approve a Resolution authorizing the County
Administrator to execute a Landscape
Construction and Maintenance Memorandum of
Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation for State Road 951 landscape
improvements.
4)
To conduct a Review Hearing to determine
whether Sewer Impact Fees are applicable to
real property located at 1500 East Tamiami
Trail.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Assist the Collier County Fair and Exposition,
Inc. with the completion of the north and south
wings of the Agricultural Pavilion by
guarantying a tax-exempt commercial paper loan.
SUPPORT SERVICES
County Administrator Recruitment
COUNTY ADMINISTP, ATOR
4
January 11, 2000
F. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
G. EMERGENCY SERVICES
9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate
Beautification Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Southwest Florida
Workforce Development Board, Region 24.
11. OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
l)
Petition PUD-82-26(3) D. Wayne Arnold, AICP,
of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.,
representing REVCO/GE Joint Venture, requesting
a rezone from "PUD" to ~PUD" Planned Unit
Development known as Village Place PUD for the
purpose of amending the PUD document having the
effect of clarifying that the front yard
building setback is measured from the back of
curb or sidewalk, and reducing the side yard
setback for a portion of the remaining lots in
Phase 1, Glen Eden and all of Phase 2, Glen
Eden, from 6 feet to five feet, for property
located on the west side of Tamiami Trail North
(U.S. 41) and east side of Vanderbilt Drive, in
Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 72.5+
acres.
2) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 14,
1999 MEETING. Petition PUD-90-17(1), Karen
Bishop of Project Management Services, Inc.,
representing Bishop John Nevins, Diocese of
Venice, requesting an amendment to a ~PUD"
5
January 1 I, 2000
Planned Unit Development, to provide additional
facilities complimentary to the existing
religious development known as the St. John the
Evangelist Catholic Church PUD, on property
located on the north side of lllth Avenue North
approximately 3/4 mile west of U.S. 41 in
Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.9 +
acres.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 23,
4)
1999 MEETING. Petition PUD-98-20, William L.
Hoover, AICP, representing Gulf Sun
Corporation, requesting a rezone from ~A" to
~PUD" to be known as Whippoorwill Lakes PUD, a
residential development not to exceed 518
dwelling units, on property located
approximately ~ mile south of Pine Ridge Road
(C.R. 896) on Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 76.85+ acres.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 23,
1999 MEETING AND HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTINUED TO
5)
THE FEBRUARY 8, 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD 99-
14, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning
Development, Inc., representing Marian H.
Gerace and Wallace L. Lewis, Jr., requesting a
rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as
Livingston Village for a maximum of 540
residential dwelling units for property located
east of the proposed Livingston Road, north of
Wyndemere PUD, in Section 19, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 148.98+/- acres.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 23,
1999 MEETING AND HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTINUED TO
THE FEBRUARY 8, 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD 99-
15, Michael Fernandez, AICP, of Planning
Development, Inc., representing Dean Huff,
Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural
Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development
to be known as Alexandria PUD for a maximum of
72 single family dwelling units for property
located on the east side of the future
Livingston Road Extension, south of Pine Ridge
Road (C.R. 896) and north of Golden Gate
Parkway (C.R.886) in Section 18, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 19.58 +/- acres.
6
January 1 i, 2000
13.
6) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 23,
1999 MEETING AND HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTINUED TO
THE FEBRUARY 8, 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD 99-
13, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning
Development, Inc., representing Relleum, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from ~A" Rural Agriculture
to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known
as Balmoral PUD for a maximum of 154
residential dwelling units for property
located on the east side of the future
Livingston Road, north of Golden Gate Parkway
(C.R. 886) and south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R.
896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
39.58 +/- acres.
C. OTHER
1)
CONTINUED FROM 12/14/99 BOARD MEETING: Adopt
an Ordinance revising the Road Impact Fee Rate
Schedule.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1)
Petition A-99-02 Jeffrey S. Kannensohn,- Esq. of
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP,
representing Eugene C. Thrushman, requesting an
appeal of the Collier County Planning Services
Director's interpretation (I-99-03) concerning
the installation of fencing within a
conservation easement for property located in
Northshore Lake Villas PUD, Tracts E and F and
Lot 55.
2) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 14,
3)
1999 MEETING. Petition V-99-21, David E.
Bryant representing Alfred Luckerbauer,
requesting a 7.5 foot variance to the required
15-foot side setback for docking facilities to
7.5 feet for property located at 9 Pelican
Street East, further described as Lot 40, Isles
of Capri No.1, in Section 32, Township 51
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition V-99-24, Jackie Ritter of Penbros
Precision Courts, Inc., representing Leslie
O'Sullivan, requesting a 39-foot, after-the-
fact, variance from the required 50-foot front
yard setback to 11 feet for property located at
111 Caribbean Road, further described as Lot 9,
Block A, Pine Ridge, in Section 10, Township 49
7
Janua~ 11, 2000
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 25,
2000 MEETING. Petition V-99-25, Joseph
Sabatino requesting a variance of 7.5 feet from
the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet along the west
side yard of Lots 13 & 14 and along the east
side yard of Lots 36 and 37; a variance of 1
foot from the required 6 foot maximum to a 7
foot maximum for height of the courtyard walls;
a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5
feet to 0 feet for accessory structures along
the side lot lines and within the courtyard
walls; and a variance of 10 feet from the
required 10 feet to 0 feet for accessory
structures along the rear lot lines and within
the courtyard walls for properties described as
Lots 13, 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17,
Naples Park, Unit 2, Collier County, Florida.
B. OTHER
14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGEndA - Ail matters listed under this item are
considered to be routine and action will be taken by one
motion without separate discussion of each item. If
discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that
item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and
considered separately.
ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
l)
A resolution to participate in funding the
Collier County Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
2)
Authorization of a 75% deferral of impact fees
for one house to be built by Henrietta Eimers
at 3418 Westclox Street in Immokalee, Collier
County.
3)
Authorization of a 50% waiver/50% deferral of
impact fees for one house to be built by Carlos
M. Lopez at 3047 54th Street, S.W., Golden Gate
City, Collier County, Florida.
8
January I 1, 2000
Authorization of a 100% waiver of impact fees
for one house to be built by Enock Jarbath at
5224 Martin Street in Naples Manor Addition,
Collier County, Florida.
s)
Authorization of a 100% waiver of impact fees
for one house to be built by Marcia L. Bichard
at 2721 Linda Drive, Collier County, Florida.
6)
Budget amendment for Planning Services computer
upgrade purchase.
7)
Authorize a budget amendment for the purpose of
opening a purchase order for the Naples Area
Chamber of Commerce/Collier County Film Office
to pay the remaining invoices for FY99.
a)
Recommendation to approve Excavation Permit No.
59.725 Power Enterprises Commercial Excavation
located in Section 30, Township 47 South, Range
28 East: bounded on the north by 72na Avenue
N.E. R/W, on the east by vacant tract, on the
south by 70th Avenue N.E. R/W and on the west by
rural agricultural.
9)
Request to approve for recording the final plat
of "Villa Florenza", and approval of the
Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
~.o)
Petition Vac 98-025 to disclaim, renounce and
vacate the public's interest in a 12' wide
parcel of land conveyed to Collier County as a
drainage easement as recorded in official
record book 1052, pages 1628 through 1638 and
to accept a 15' wide drainage easement as a
replacement easement, located in Section 22,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County.
PUBLIC WORKS
l)
Approve the purchase of seating benches from
the Norix Group, Inc. on Florida State Contract
and approve a Budget Amendment.
a)
Award Bid No. 99-3015 "Generator Repair,
Maintenance and Installation" to AAA Generator.
3)
Designate the Public Works Operations Director
as an additional authorized representative of
9
January I 1, 2000
4)
S)
6)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
the Solid Waste Department to sign all grant
applications and quarterly grant reports for
the Recycling & Education Grant, Waste Tire
Grant, and Litter Control and Prevention Grant.
Approve an Agreement for sale and purchase of a
parcel to provide for expansion of areas where
future stormwater and roadway projects are
proposed.
Execute and approve Work Order No. PB-99-4 for
Professional Building Systems to clear and grub
the south rights-of-way of Golden Gate
Boulevard from CR 951 to 25t~ Street (Part of
the Golden Gate Boulevard Four Lane
Improvement, from CR 951 to Wilson Boulevard).
Collier County Project #63041.
Approve Work Order for Water and Wastewater
Telemetry Consulting Services, Projects 70124,
73922 and 74033.
This item has been deleted.
This item has been deleted.
Request approval to use funds from the.Solid
Waste Tire Grant to provide safety play
surfaces at various locations in Collier
County.
Obtain approval to add E.B. Simmonds as a
secondary contractor for contractual services
for traffic signal installation on Bid #98-
2821.
Award Bid #99-3004 for the purchase of one (1)
crew cab flat bed dump truck.
Award Bid #99-3012 for the purchase of one (1)
single drum vibratory roller.
Award Bid #99-3003 for the purchase of one (1),
5-cubic yard dump truck.
Approve a Resolution authorizing the County
Administrator to execute a Highway
Beautification Grant Application and Attendant
Agreements with the Florida Department of
Transportation for U.S. 41 North Landscape
Improvements.
1o
January I I, 2000
Ce
15)
Approve settlement of construction contract
dispute with Preservation Services, Inc., for
the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
Process Tank Repairs, Contract 96-2524, and
related Work Order Amendment with Agnoli Barber
& Brundage, Project 70023.
Approve the purchase of one (1) tractor/mower
combination on Madison County, Florida bid.
*,7)
Award a Contract to Native Creations Inc., to
remove exotic vegetation at South County Water
Reclamation Facility, Bid 99-2985, Project
73916.
Approve Professional Services Agreement with
Law Gibb Group, Inc., Ardaman and Associates,
ASC Geosciences, and Forge Engineering for the
Fixed Term Material Testing Services (RFP #99-
2962) .
19)
Approve a Lease Agreement between Collier
County and NTC Development, LTD. for use of
county-owned property.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approval of Resolution authorizing the Library
Director to negotiate and execute written
agreements to purchase internet on-line
database subscriptions.
a)
Approve the final ranking of landscape
architect firms for the implementation of
Master Plan for North Naples Regional Park
request for proposal 99-2947.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Approval of an Affidavit Concerning an Approved
Lease Agreement with BellSouth Mobility, Inc.
a)
Approval of an Assignment of Lease Between
Alagold Corporation D/B/A Landmark Estates and
Hometown Landmark LLC.
3)
Approve Contract Amendment for RFP 98-2856,
Consultant Services for Development of Regional
Impact Process.
4)
Report to the Board of County Commissioners
Concerning the Sale and Transfer of Items
I1
January I 1, 2000
17.
Associated with the County Surplus Auction of
November 20, 1999.
5)
Approval to Award RFP #99-2975 Digital Copiers
for the Central Copier System to J.M. Todd,
Inc.
E. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget
Amendments #00-082; #00-084; #00-095; #00-096.
F. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EMERGENCY SERVICES
l)
Request Board approval to award Bid Number 99-
2993, EC-135 Helicopter, to Metro Aviation,
Inc. and to approve a Resolution authorizing
Commercial Paper Loan Financing.
H. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Miscellaneous items to file for record with
action as directed
I. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
J. COUNTY ATTORNEY
l)
Request to accept a 15' wide permanent drainage
easement in the Pelican Marsh Community
Development District.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR
THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING
ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO
INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
ITEM.
Petition V-99-23, Robert W.Herrmann, representing
Joseph E. D'Jamoos, requesting a 7.5 foot variance
from the required 7.5-foot side yard setback to 0
12
January I 1, 2000
feet and a 10-foot variance from the required 25-
foot rear yard setback to 15 feet for property
located at 325 Sedgwick Court, further described as
Lot 57, Pelican Bay Unit 10, in Section 33, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition CU 99-28, Mr. Jeff L. Davidson,
representing TTT, Inc., requesting Conditional Use
"1" of the agriculture zoning district to allow for
an earthmining operation for property located on the
north side of Red Deer Road and approximately 2,000
feet north of Immokalee Road (CR-846), in Section
24, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Petition SNR-99-05, Robert T. Stroot, representing
Crosspointe Development, Inc., requesting a street
name change from Commons Place West and Commons
Place East to Crosspointe Drive, located in the
Riverchase Commons Subdivision, in Section 22,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Petition VAC 99-016 to vacate a 5' wide portion of
the existing 20' wide drainage easement along the
west and south sides of ~Pebblebrook Lakes" located
in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
Petition VAC 99-020 to vacate the drainage easement
on the south portion of Parcel D, "Pelican Marsh
Unit Six", as recorded in Plat Book 24, Pages 50
through 51, Public Records of Collier County,
Florida, and to accept a drainage easement as a
replacement easement on said Parcel D, located in
Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE
MADE TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
13
January ! !, 2000
January 11, 2000
Item #3
REGULAR AGENDA, CONSENT AGENDA AND SUMMARY AGENDA
- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good morning. We'll call to order
the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for January
11th, 2000, and we are pleased to have with us this morning
Father Tim Navin from St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church for
our invocation. If you'll stand for that, and then afterwards we'll
have the pledge of allegiance.
FATHER NAVIN: Good morning.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Morning.
FATHER NAVIN: Let us pray.
Lord, our God, you have given all peoples one common
origin, and your will is to gather them as one family in yourself.
Fill the hearts of all with the fire of your love and the desire to
ensure justice for all our brothers and sisters. By sharing the
good things you give us, may we secure justice and equality for
every human being, an end to all division, and a society built on
love, mercy and peace. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Father.
FATHER NAVIN: Thank you. My pleasure.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's talk about changes to the
agenda.
MR. McNEES: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman,
commissioners. We have a number of changes this morning;
fortunately most of them are continuances.
We have two items to add. Item F(1) is a budget amendment
-- actually a couple of budget amendments, for the benefit of the
airport authority, they've asked us to add today.
Item 8(F)(2) is a similar issue, a budget amendment on
behalf of the airport authority.
The rest of the -- let's see, we're adding also the item that
you talked about at your Land Development Code meeting last
Wednesday, which will become Item 12(C)(2), the discussion of
Page 2
January 11, 2000
proposed sign code revisions. We're adding that to your agenda
at your request today as a continuance.
The other items are all request continuances at petitioners'
requests. The first is Item 8(B)(2) is being continued to January
25th. Item 8(B)(3), which is a companion item, also to January
25th. Continuing Item 8(B)(4) to January 25th. Item 12(B)(3),
rezoning petition, to February the 8th. Again, at the
commissioners -- or the petitioner's request.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 8(B)(3)?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Uh-huh.
MR. McNEES: 12(B)(3).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 12(B)(3), that's already listed --
oh, all right, okay.
MR. McNEES: Right, the Whippoorwill Lakes PUD.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. McNEES: And finally, to continue Item 13(A)(2), setback
variance, also at the petitioner's request, to January the 25th.
That would be all the staff recommended changes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Commissioner Berry, any
changes?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I did. I had some regarding
some of the excavation. I don't have --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
come right back to you?
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
You want to look at it and we'll
Yeah.
Okay. Commissioner Norris?
No changes.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My same question is as
Commissioner Berry's on the excavation. I think it's Consent
Item --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It is on the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think it's No. 8.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I had them all written down.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Somebody want to tell us what
item numbers those are? Vince, can you help us with that, the
excavation permit items? I'm looking, but maybe you'll --
Page 3
January 1t, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have them written down. If you'll
excuse me just a minute --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- I'll go get the list and I'll be right
back.
MR. McNEES: 16(A)(8) is one of the excavation permits. I
believe that's the only one. Let me --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 16(A)?
MR. McNEES: (8).
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 16(A)(8). That's the other -- Vince
agrees, so we'll move that. What will that become, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: That will become 8(A)(9).
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 8(A)(9).
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's all I had, Madam
Chairwoman.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. And Commissioner
Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had two to remove from
the consent agenda. 16(A)(7).
MR. McNEES: That will become 16(A)(10).
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 8(A)(10)?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And 16(G)(1).
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That will become 8(A)(11).
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or 8(G)(1).
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. 8(G)(1).
MR. McNEES: Right, that will become 8(G)(1).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me, Madam Chair, I want
to go check.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just to double-check? Sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me go through those numbers
just to make sure I've got them correct, Mr. McNees. What
became 8(A)(9)?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The excavation permit.
MR. McNEES: 16(A)(8) became 8(A)(9).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And then (10)?
MR. McNEES: Was 16(A)(7).
Page 4
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 16(A)(7). And (11)?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Actually, there is no 11, I was
wrong about that. It becomes 8(G)(1).
MR. McNEES: Correct, 16(G)(1) becomes 8(G)(1).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 8(G)(1).
MR. McNEES: Financing for the helicopter purchase.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: (G)(1), okay, I got it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't have anything, but I think
it's real important we don't approve a consent item mistakenly,
so I'm going to give Commissioner Berry just a minute more to
look at that.
Maybe while we're waiting, you want to go ahead and do the
staff communication item? Or --
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
JANUARY 11, 2000
ADD: ITEM 8(F)(1) - APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WILL RECOGNIZE
AN ADDITIONAL GRANT OF $6,334, TRANSFER $1,583.50 FROM AIRPORT
AUTHORITY CAPITAL RESERVES, INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE RUNWAY
LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $3,716.25 AND INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE
AIRFIELD SIGNAGE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $4,201.25, (STAFF'S REQUEST).
ADD: ITEM 8(F)(2) - APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WILL RECOGNIZE
AN ADDITIONAL GRANT OF $41,000, TRANSFER $41,000 FROM AIRPORT
AUTHORITY CAPITAL RESERVES AND INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE T-HANGER
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $82,000. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
ADD: ITEM 12(C)(2)- CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING OF LDC AMENDMENTS
FOR DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SIGN CODE REVISIONS. (BCC DIRECTIVE).
CONTINUE TO 1/25 MEETING: ITEM 803)(2) - APPROVAL OF THE MEDIAN
LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH 951 LAND HOLDINGS JOINT
VENTURE (PETITIONER'S REQUEST).
CONTINUE TO 1/25 MEETING: ITEM 8(B)(3) - COMPANION TO 8(B)(2) - APPROVE
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A
LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT WITH THE FDOT FOR SR 951 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
(PETITIONER'S REQUEST).
CONTINUE TO 1/25 MEETING: ITEM 8(B)(4) - TO CONDUCT A REVIEW HEARING TO
DETERMINE WHETHER SEWER IMPACT FEES ARE APPLICABLE TO REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1500 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST).
CONTINUE TO 2/8 MEETING: ITEM 1203)(3) - PUD 98-20 REZONE FROM "A' TO
"PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY ¼ MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD ON WHIPPOORWILL LANE.
(PETITIONER'S REQUEST).
CONTINUE TO 1/25 MEETING: ITEM 13(A)(2) - PETITION V-99-21 ALFRED
LUCKERBAUER REQUESTING A 7.5 FT. VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 15 FT. SIDE
SETBACK FOR DOCKING FACILITIES TO 7.5 FT. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9
PELICAN STREET EAST, ISLES OF CAPRI. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST).
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
FEBRUARY 29TM DCA MEETING IN FT. MYERS.
January 1 t, 2000
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 1999,
AND THE SPECIAL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1999 -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Approve the minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There you go. That's a better idea.
Let's go to approval of minutes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move approval of the
December 14th regular meeting and December 15th special
meeting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
something she wants --
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
17(B).
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
All in favor, please say aye.
That passes unanimously.
Commissioner Berry has
It was also an excavation.
It was on 177
Yeah, it's on the summary agenda.
So where will that go, Mr. McNees?
137
MR. McNEES: Vince, help me out. Will that go under 12 or
MR. CAUTERO: 13. Item 13.
MR. McNEES: So that would become 13(A)(5)?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 13(A)(5).
What was the former number?
MR. McNEES: 17(B).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 17(B).
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. McNEES: And that's from the summary agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Motion on the agenda then?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move approval of the consent
agenda, summary agenda and regular agenda, with changes as
Page 6
January 11, 2000
noted.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING RONALD L. SCOTT ON
BEING NAMED "1999 VETERAN OF THE YEAR" - ADOPTED
And we'll go to a very special proclamation that
Commissioner Carter is going to read for us.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, if Mr. Ronald Scott would
step forward this morning, please. You're right, this is a very
special proclamation. It's -- Ronald Scott is the president of the
Collier County Veterans Council, and we're rewarding him this
morning a very special award for being the veteran that he is.
Proclamation:
WHEREAS, the Board of Collier County Commissioners takes
pleasure in recognizing the accomplishments of the citizens who
have made outstanding contributions to our community; and
WHEREAS, Ronald L. Scott (Scotty), is currently serving his
second term as the president of the Collier County Veterans
Council; and
WHEREAS, Ronald L. Scott, as an officer and member of the
Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 706 has been chairman of
the speakers bureau which goes into the public schools to speak
about veterans and Vietnam, and has been instrumental over the
past three years in organizing and participating in the annual
food drive for needy veterans and families in Collier County; and
WHEREAS, Ronald L. Scott has been a leader in organizing
Veteran Day activities and POW/MIA ceremonies held annually in
Collier County; and
WHEREAS, Ronald L. Scott has served for three years as the
volunteer of the Collier County Veterans Council Transportation
Page 7
January 11, 2000
Program; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Collier County Commissioners has
been informed that Ronald L. Scott has been selected as veteran
of the year for the State of Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that it wishes to extend
congratulations to Ronald L. Scott on being named the 1999
veteran of the year by the State of Florida, by the Vietnam
Veterans of America, Florida State Council, and appreciates his
efforts on behalf of the veterans of Collier County.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 11th day of January, 2000, board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Pamela S.
Mac'Kie, Chairwoman.
I ask that we proudly approve this proclamation.
Second.
All in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
(Applause.)
That passes unanimously.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you so much.
say a word, if you'd like.
MR. SCOTT: I would like to, thank you.
Feel free to
Madam president, Board of County Commissioners, I would
like to thank you very much for this. It has been a lot of hard
work the last couple of years, but I want to tell you that I did this
not by myself. This was done by the members of Chapter 706. It
was also done through the Collier County Veterans Council.
My main objective in this last year and this upcoming year is
to bring the veterans organization closer together as one unit.
That is my objective, because we all fought in wars, just different
wars. And for us to be in the community and do what we do, we
need to be one. And I thank you very much for this. Thank you
all. Tom Olliff, thank you. (Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's so rare that we take a moment
to thank our veterans, so I just want to use this as an opportunity
Page 8
January 11, 2000
to thank Scotty and to thank all of the veterans of our community
whom he represents for the debt that we owe them and always
will, and to express our very sincere gratitude.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 16-22,
2000, AS PURPLE MARTIN WEEK - ADOPTED
We'll go now to the Purple Martin Week proclamation.
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
one with the birdhouse, right?
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
Yes, ma'am.
She's our official bird -- you're the
Bird brain.
Anyway, it's my pleasure to again read this particular
proclamation. I've had the pleasure of doing this for a couple of
years, and I want you to know that we're into our 26th year of
having a Purple Martin house in our family. So at any rate, Carter
Smith, we're happy to have you here this morning, and the
proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, in a very short time, thousands of our very
beautiful feathered friends, the Purple Martins, will return from
their winter home in Brazil; and
WHEREAS, these birds will be searching for suitable housing
to enable them to nest and rear their young; and
WHEREAS, the Florida legislature has designated Collier
County the Purple Martin Capital of Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County is
desirous of urging the public to erect proper housing for these
very valuable winged creatures by placing said houses on their
property; and
WHEREAS, during the period of January 16th through the
22nd, 2000, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County will
endeavor to alert the public as to how valuable these birds are in
helping to diminish the insect and mosquito population.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Page 9
January 11, 2000
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
January 16th through the 22nd in the year 2000, be designated
as Purple Martin Week in Collier County and urge all citizens to
loin with the Purple Martin Society of Collier County to show
their concern for these valuable and friendly winged creatures
and learn to protect and preserve them.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 11th day of January, year 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Pamela S. Mac'Kie,
Chairwoman.
Madam Chair, it is my privilege to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
MR. SMITH: This is a rather difficult act to follow after a
veteran of our country.
Madam Chairwoman, Commissioners of Collier County, it
gives me much pleasure to accept this proclamation on behalf of
the good citizens of Collier County and the Purple Martin Society
of Collier County.
For many years we were The Conservancy Purple Martin
Society. Quite a mouth full for an organization devoted to such a
small bird. Yet this bird happens to be the largest member of the
Swallow family and as such, has the dubious reputation of
consuming 3,000 mosquitoes per day.
I say dubious, because -- oh, well, let me tell you the original
story. It seems that some fellow found a dead Purple Martin at
his housing site in the morning. Curiosity prevailed and so with
scalpel in hand, he proceeded to dissect the fallen bird to
determine the cause of death.
He never found the cause of death, but he stumbled upon
this revelation. Inside of the stomach he found a generous
number of mosquitoes. It was 9:00 in the morning, and with a
little arithmetic, he calculated that if the bird had consumed "X'
number of mosquitoes by 9:00 a.m., by sunset he would have
Page 10
January 11, 2000
devoured some 3,000 mosquitoes.
Well, a neighbor told a neighbor and soon the story spread
across this fair land of ours, and the message was clear, put up a
Purple Martin house and rid your neighbor -- your property and
your neighborhood of mosquitoes.
Is it true? Like a lot of stories, it's a lot of yeast to it,
probably. But like the rest of the animal kingdom, birds consume
what's available and then what's preferred in their limited world.
Surely a favorite dish of Purple Martins in Collier County is the
small orange dragon fly, topped with a portion of mosquitoes,
and laced with other choice bugs. Sounds delicious, right?
And now many thanks to you, the commissioners of Collier
County, for your support of the Purple Martin Program.
(Applause.)
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING WEEK OF JANUARY 16-22, 2000
AS COLLIER COUNTY SAFE BOATING WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And next we have Commissioner
Constantine with Safe Boating Week.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. We have Randy Ward
with us this morning. And Randy is the president of the marine
industry's association here in Collier County. Proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, boating is a major recreational activity of Collier
County; and
WHEREAS, boating is enjoyed by all citizens of all ages; and
WHEREAS, boating is participated by residents and visitors
alike; and
WHEREAS, boating is deserving the attention of safety on
the water; and
WHEREAS, boating is enhanced by the practice of safety on
the water; and
WHEREAS, boating in a safe manner benefits everyone; and
WHEREAS, it's appropriate to recognize the value of safe
Page 11
January 11, 2000
boating education by designated Collier County Safe Boating
Week.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of
January 17th, 2000, be designated as Collier County Safe Boating
Week to encourage the people in Collier County to become
familiar with safe boating procedures and to practice safe
boating in the waters of Collier County.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 11th day of January, 2000, board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Pamela S.
Mac'Kie, Chairwoman.
Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion we approve the
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Got a word to say?
MR. WARD: Good morning. We'd like to thank you for this
proclamation. Our 1,800-member employees with over 20 million
dollars of economic impact in the county -- you realize there's
19,000 boats in Collier County. So it's very important that we do
safe boating. And some of the things our association does is we
promote safe boating through support of the Coast Guard
Auxiliary and the Power Squadron and their programs and
through our dealers. We also support the two annual bay
cleanups with sites and personnel.
We have a very exciting program coming up and that's the
new DEP's and clean marina program, and we're going to strive
to make sure Collier County is the first county, that every marina
supports it.
We've also presented the Waterloo, which is our pump-out
boat to the city for pumping out the sewage systems on boats,
which is the first one of its type in the State of Florida. And
Page 12
January 11, 2000
we're very proud of that.
We also worked with Ken Pineau in the last year, and I'm
sure you've all seen this. This is the -- your boat and hurricanes
in Collier County. We have this, we will be giving this out, and
hope that it keeps the boats safe in the county.
And of course the continuing support of this is done through
our annual boat show, which is the 20th through the 23rd of this
month. We will have safe boating programs, we'll have the Coast
Guard Auxiliary and the Power Squadron, fishing expos, and all
reasons to use your boat in Collier County, and again in a safe
and productive manner. We thank you and have a good day.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE LATE DAVID CHRONISTER-
ADOPTED
And now we have--
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- another very special
proclamation that Commissioner Norris is going to do. We'd like
to ask Mrs. David Chronister to come forward. We appreciate
you being here with us this morning.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Proclamation reads:
WHEREAS, David Chronister was a dedicated county
employee from 1988 to 1999; and
WHEREAS, Dave moved through the ranks, starting as a
mechanic, and ending his career as the wastewater collection
supervisor; and
WHEREAS, Dave was a man of few words, a good and decent
person with an honest, straightforward personality, a man who
would do anything for customers and fellow employees; and
WHEREAS, his initiative improved employee relations,
morale, work efficiency and employee safety; and
WHEREAS, Dave was instrumental in procuring and
renovating the wastewater collection facility, saving taxpayer
Page 13
January 11, 2000
dollars, while improving the professionalism and efficiency of the
wastewater department; and
WHEREAS, staff would like to recognize David Chronister's
contributions by memorializing this facility in his name.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the wastewater
collection facility, located within the Pine Ridge Industrial Park,
be therefore honorably recognized in David Chronister's name.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 11th day of January, 2000 by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
Pamela S. Mac'Kie, Chairwoman.
And Madam Chairwoman, I have a plaque here to be
presented, and Ms. Chronister will take it up to the facility, and it
will be dedicated in David's name.
And I move that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
MR. McNEES: Madam Chairwoman, I'd just like to say a
couple of things. There's an awful lot of people that work behind
the scenes in this organization; they don't get on the television,
they don't get in the newspaper. And I don't think in my time
here, there's been anybody that epitomizes the soul of the county
worker any better than David Chronister did.
I remember a few months ago when we were having some
communications struggles between our office and your office,
and one of you said one day that you had a fear that one day you
would wake up and the toilets wouldn't flush and you wouldn't
know about it.
And I guess I'm going to tell you that nobody who knew
David Chronister the way I knew him ever worried for one second
that the toilets wouldn't flush. And that may sound kind of funny,
but that's what David was all about.
And on behalf of the people in wastewater collections, many
Page 14
January 11, 2000
of whom are here today, David's crews and the people in public
works and all the county employees, we appreciate you taking
the time to recognize David, because we'll miss him around here.
He was a good man. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mike.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let's recognize those employees
that are here.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Very good suggestion. Would the
employees who have worked with him who are here this morning,
would you please stand so we can thank you as well?
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You better believe these are the
guys who have the behind-the-scenes business of the county
government that we take for granted. But this morning we'd
really like to thank you and tell you how much we appreciate
being able to take for granted that your lobs are being done.
Thank you.
Item #5A5
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 16-22,
2000 AS DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. WEEK - ADOPTED
Our last proclamation this morning will be accepted by Ms.
Kim Long, who is the education chairperson for the NAACP and a
member of the Martin Luther King Day Committee.
Proclamation reads:
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States of America has
designated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a
national holiday; and
WHEREAS, the President of the United States has signed
legislation authorizing Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday,
with observances to commence on January 16th, 2000; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received national and
international recognition for his stirring struggle against injustice
and his leadership in espousing brotherhood, self-discipline and
non-violence; and
Page 15
January 11, 2000
WHEREAS, the Collier County branch of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, will
hold a commemorative celebration of Dr. King's birthday by
sponsoring the traditional Freedom March on Monday, January
17th, 2000 honoring his lifelong efforts to achieve freedom for all.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that January 16th
through 22nd, 2000 be designated as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Week in Collier County, and urge all citizens to remember Dr.
King's outstanding accomplishments by participating in
commemorative celebrations to be held during Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Week.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 11th day of January, 2000, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Pamela S.
Mac'Kie, Chairwoman.
I move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
MS. LONG: On behalf of the Collier County branch of the
NAACP, I thank you wholeheartedly for recognizing this great
mall,
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Southern Baptist minister,
author, and undoubtedly one of the most effective civil rights
leaders in this nation's history, preached universal love and
brotherhood and led non-violent demonstrations and sit-ins all
over the country for racial equality.
A Memorial in Washington D.C. will be built in His Honor near
the location of his historic '1 Have a Dream" speech. His name
was listed with a few who were honored as people of the century
and who had the most influence on America during the 20th
century.
We continue to honor his legacy and work to ensure equality
for all of God's children. Thank you very much.
Page 16
January 11, 2000
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sure we'll be made aware of
what the festivities are this year. It will be easy to find out. It
might also be something that would want to be put on the County
government's Channel 54 so everybody can be make aware of it.
And I just have to tell you, if you don't go to anything else,
go to the church service, it's the best.
Okay, Commissioner Constantine.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have five service
awards today; two employees celebrating five years of service
with us.
From veterans service, you saw snapping some pictures of
Scotty this morning, Peter Kraley. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also celebrating five years
with us is Debrah Preston, from the Planning Department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's a woman who's gotten a
lot done in five years.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have three employees
celebrating 10 years with us. From Human Resources, getting
her 10-year pin, is Karen Kocses. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And from inspections, both
celebrating 10 years, Robert Stringer and Eric Schramm.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you guys start the same day or
just the same year?
MR. STRINGER: The same year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Page 17
January 11, 2000
Item #5C
RECOGNIZED ELIDA VALDEZ, TRAFFIC TECHNICIAN I,
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT AS
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JANUARY~ 2000
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Now I'd like to ask Elida Valdez to
come forward. There, okay. Shying in the back, but there she is.
Is Elida correct?
MS. VALDEZ: Very correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good.
Elida has been recognized today as the employee of the
month for January, 2000. She is a member of the Collier County
Transportation Services Department, and has been employed
with the county for 25 years.
Elida was named the January recipient for her consistently
positive attitude and outstanding ]ob performance. Nominated
by her co-workers, she's the sole employee of the traffic
operations section who's responsible for making all of the
signage on Collier County roads.
On the average, Elida makes about 25 signs a day for three
county sign crews. She's also in charge of ordering supplies and
maintaining the inventory.
In addition, Elida serves as the interpreter for the Hispanic
employees of the road and bridge section. Sounds like a busy
]ob.
Elida's entire county career has been with the Collier County
Transportation Services Department. After five years in
Immokalee Road and bridge department, Elida was transferred to
Naples where she works for road and bridge as a timekeeper on
the roads.
When she's not busy working, Elida enjoys spending time
with her six married children, as well as her seventh adopted
10-year-old daughter, who's also named Elida.
We're pleased, Ms. Valdez, to offer you this small check and
a token of our appreciation, and this plaque, and a letter for your
file, and our gratitude. Thank you. Congratulations.
Page 18
January 11, 2000
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not a bad way to kick off
the new year.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am.
Item #5D
SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN
Now we'll move to the item where we select a new
chairman and vice-chairman. And I'll open the floor for
nomination for chairman.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairwoman, I'd like to
nominate Commissioner Constantine for chairman.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. Are there any other
nominations?
If not, all in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that passes unanimously.
We'll switch seats and let you -- we'll take just a two-minute
break to switch seats and then we'll have our vice chair election.
(Recess taken.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we're back. Before we go
on to the vice-chairman thing, we have something special here.
Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You can do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You know, we always laugh,
because this is safe boating week, and we always say being
chairman of the board is much like getting a boat. The happiest
day is either when you become chairman or when you give up the
gavel. We're not sure which.
You see all smiles on Commissioner Mac'Kie's face, but it is
not an easy task and we appreciate you shepherding us and
herding us like five cats throughout the year, and so we want to
give you this plaque and thanks for the past year.
Page 19
January 11, 2000
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And with that, let's open the
vice chairman's sweepstakes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to nominate
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Congratulations to
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
might get it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Thank you, sir. My pleasure.
Be careful what you ask for, you
Do we keep switching chairs?
Only if you want.
Item #8A1
RES. 2000-12 RENAMING C.R. AND S.R. 951 TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's move on then to the
Community Development and Environmental Services, 8(A)(1).
Presentation of the results of a survey of property and business
owners, County Road and State Road 951.
me,
Mr. Mulhere, good morning.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning, and congratulations.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought he was congratulating
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: He well may be.
MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere, planning services director.
As you will recall, you directed the staff to prepare a survey
of property owners along both County Road and State Road 951
to determine a couple of issues: A, whether they supported
Page20
January 11, 2000
renaming the road, and then B, if they did, or regardless of
whether or not they did support the road, what preference they
might have for a new name.
And we did send out surveys to all property owners, whether
they were -- as well as business owners along 951. And we
received, I think, an excellent response. Approximately 60
percent of the 699 surveys that we can presume were received,
because they were not returned to us undeliverable,
approximately 60 percent responded. And overwhelmingly, the
majority of those supported renaming the road.
There were actually three names listed on the survey;
Collier Boulevard, Martin Luther King Boulevard, and Gene
Sarezen Parkway. And Collier Boulevard received 52 percent, or
was favored by 52 percent of the respondents. Gene Sarezen
was favored by 15 percent, and Martin Luther King Boulevard by
slightly less than I percent.
We did allow respondents to suggest a name. And of those
that could be printed in this executive summary, we listed quite
a few. There were relatively few in number. Country Club
Boulevard received 11. They're in your executive summary,
rather than spending your time going over them.
We also received several letters that were outside of the
survey process, and we provided that information for you in the
executive summary packet. For example, Crystal Lake property
owners supported Collier Boulevard. We received a letter from
Rosemary Messmore, who is the daughter of L.L. "Doc" Roach
(sic) who developed --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Loach.
MR. MULHERE: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The name is Loach.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, yes, Loach.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Loach.
MR. MULHERE: Loach, right. And he was the developer of
Isles of Capri.
We also received a letter from the chairman, then-chairman
of the Marco Island City Council, Kjell Pettersen, who
recommended the City Council of Marco Island voted to support
Page 21
January 11, 2000
Collier Parkway.
I also spent some time talking to the emergency service
providers in the addressing department, and they raised some
concerns in terms of the impacts. If we were to go with Collier
Boulevard, we have several thousand addresses already using
the name Collier Boulevard south of the Jolly Bridge, on Marco
Island. That would require readdressing many of those, if not all
of those, if we continued Collier Boulevard north of the bridge.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why is that? Wouldn't numbering
take care of it?
MR. MULHERE: Well, we could renumber them, yes. Or just
start the numbering at the highest number and move forward.
Therefore, north of the Jolly Bridge would be a continuation of
the highest number of North Collier Boulevard, south of Marco
Island.
Staff felt that the least impact in terms of impacting
workload and still providing some differentiation between the
existing Collier Boulevard and whatever you choose to name the
balance of 951 would be Collier Parkway, which would retain the
continuity of the Collier name there, but would also provide some
differentiation.
I do want to let you know, there is some fiscal impact. It's
approximately $2,500 for changing all of the street signs.
We did talk to the state. They have no objection to the
board renaming it. They will retain the numerical system, as will
the county, on the smaller route signs, 951, but they have no
objection to the board renaming both the county portion and the
state portion of 951.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff on this item?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have public speakers on
this item?
MR. McNEES: You have one. LaVerne Franklin.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MS. FRANKLIN: Good morning. I have a petition I would like
to submit, and --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you could just identify
Page 22
January t 1, 2000
yourself for the record.
MS. FRANKLIN: I'm sorry. My name is LaVerne Franklin.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. FRANKLIN: I'm a concerned citizen of Collier County.
And I am here to represent the NAACP, the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MS. FRANKLIN: You're welcome.
Okay. I have a letter and I have petitions and handouts for
the commissioners.
I was all prepared to say good morning, Madam Chair, and
congratulations on your marriage, but now I have to say good
morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It will be congratulations on my
anniversary next week.
MS. FRANKLIN: The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People is here to ask that Dr. King be
honored and to rename 951 in his honor.
We have a broad base support from all over the county. We
have supporters. And I have submitted a petition that has 532
signatures that have been collected across the county from
people from all walks of life, asking that 951 be renamed in honor
of Dr. Martin Luther King.
You have already identified him as being worthy by honoring
him this morning with your proclamation. And I thank you for
that.
Next week not only here in Collier County will he be
recognized, but he will be recognized throughout the entire
United States, and hopefully throughout the world. So it's very
fitting that we address you today on this very important issue,
and we ask your consideration.
Collier County does not have one road, does not have one
facility honoring this great American. This Godly man, he
preached universal love and brotherhood. And NAACP and a lot
of residents of Collier County feel as though this is overdue.
I would like to read the letter that was sent to you from the
Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, and it says: "This letter is
Page 23
January 11, 2000
being sent to you in an effort to show Unity Faith Missionary
Baptist Church supports the renaming of Highway 951 in honor of
the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
As I'm sure you are aware, that the local chapter of NAACP
is spearheading this endeavor, and is asking the church for its
support, since our facility is in close proximity of 951, it would be
an honor to this county, the first cultural community, to see at
least one street in this vast and rapidly developing county to be
named in honor of Dr. King. It would serve as both a reminder to
our nation's history and as a part of the history of this county in
which we are an integral part.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
May God bless you."
As I said earlier, we submitted 532 signatures, asking you to
rename this highway. We also predicted the outcome of the
survey, and we did have some questions about that. Because we
did an informal survey on our own, and we asked people, a lot of
our members and supporters that live on 951, or very close to
951, did they actually receive a survey. And I only had one
response, and that one person received a report.
We have been trying to get people to support this idea and
asking them to call their commissioners, to write, to E-mail, to
fax. I've been getting a lot of phone calls from people saying that
they were directed that you could not take a telephone poll, and
that they would have to come here personally to present their
support in this issue. And we were under the impression that
that wasn't necessarily true, that we felt as though that we could
call, we could write and we could have a dialogue with the
commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You certainly can. Do you know
who told you that? Was it someone on the commission office or
someone on Horseshoe Drive?
MS. FRANKLIN: They called the 774-8383 number.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, that's the county
administrator's.
MS. FRANKLIN: Yes, it is.
So we were alarmed about that. And that tends to say to
Page 24
January 11, 2000
the people and to you, our commissioners, that we are not in
support of this idea. And we very much are, and a lot of people
throughout this county are.
In gathering support, too, I have been talking to different
people and also to a few of the commissioners, and some of the
response that I got, it alerted us to some concerns. And I would
like to address those concerns.
I was asked, why don't you want it in the Black community?
Also, if I were to vote for it, I would probably vote for Collier
Boulevard.
So we at the NAACP -- well, let me back up for a second. It
also says that why Collier Boulevard? Because he was the
founder and he gave money to find -- as founder of this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: County.
MS. FRANKLIN: --county. Thank you. I knew I needed
some help here.
So this -- we are alerted to that. And it says to us, do we
have a class system just built on economics, that only the
wealthy can be recognized in this county? It also says that
where is -- where do you perceive the Black community to be,
River Park or Gordon Park? Is it suggesting that the minorities
have not contributed anything to Collier County?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I need to you kind of
summarize.
MS. FRANKLIN: Okay, I will summarize.
We'd like to address, you know, some of the important
issues that Dr. King has done for the nation and not only for
Collier County, but we feel as though that he is worthy -- he is
indeed worthy.
As Mrs. Long stood here before and she stated some of his
ma]or accomplishments, Dr. King was -- he received the world's
highest honor, and that was the Nobel Peace Prize. Also, Time
Magazine named him the Man of the Year. Arabian states in
1968 honored him with stamps. We here in Collier County have
not honored him at all.
In January, 1986, they observed the national observance of
his birthday. He was -- Washington D.C., recently now, they
Page 25
January 11, 2000
dedicated four acres to a memorial for Dr. Martin Luther King.
His name is listed with few who have been honored as People of
the Century. He was also listed as who had the most influence in
America in the 20th Century. But here in Collier County, we have
not one thing to honor this great American.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I need to you wrap up. We have
a time limit on speakers, so --
MS. FRANKLIN: I'm sorry. Be patient, I'm sorry.
So NAACP has been tasked with -- from its membership that
they would like to cooperate with you to work within guidelines,
within policies to achieve this optimal result, that we are here to
work, joint committees, ad hoc committees, whatever it takes to
get this man on in Collier County. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. That concludes our
speakers. Comments? Questions? Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many respondents do we
have to the survey, 60 something?
MR. MULHERE: No, it was more than that. Let me just --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First I'm going to want the
answer to that question, if you would, please.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I want to tell you how we notified
people.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They had 416.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
416.
So we had 416 respondents?
And how many of those were in
favor of Collier Boulevard? About half? MR. MULHERE: Correct, 52 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we have on one case about,
say, 250 even, people in favor of Collier Boulevard, but this
petition presents us with over 500 names, all Collier County
residents, in favor of renaming the road for Dr. Martin Luther
King? That speaks volumes to me.
The question, I guess, is going to be do the people who live
on and work on the road have the right to name the road, or
Page 26
January 11, 2000
should the community at large have the right to name the road?
And it is an arterial collector, am I right?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's not a neighborhood street
or, you know, something that's just a road affecting a
neighborhood.
I'm -- I'd want to congratulate NAACP for having gotten that
level of participation and gotten that organized in getting that
stuff together to get that number of signatures on that petition. I
don't think we should treat that lightly at all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not going to speak against
Martin Luther King, the naming of that. However, I think what's
happening now, we're relating apples and oranges. We told them
to survey the people along 951. That was the direction, okay?
Their petition was collected throughout Collier County. Now
you're not using -- you're not polling the same group of people.
Had we sent a survey out to all the people in Collier County, the
result might have been different.
I have to tell you personally, I really don't care whether you
rename County Road 951 or not. It's immaterial to me. I think it
creates some problems. As far as I'm concerned, County Road
951 is fine. You can leave it alone.
I think if you're going to rename it, it makes some sense for
continuity to continue something with Collier. If it can be redone
in the naming to either south of 41, it's Collier South, or north of
that, it's Collier North or something. I don't know. I'm not an
expert, and I'm not going to sit up here and make the policy. But
-- you know, I mean sit up here and rework it. I think staff needs
to work on that and then either come back to us, but from this
commissioner's standpoint, you can leave it alone.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Franklin obviously is correct,
Martin Luther King was a great American and certainly deserving
of honor. However, we do have procedures and policies, and we
put those into effect here on this survey. The survey came back
52 percent of the affected people wanted Collier as the name.
Page 27
January 11, 2000
Collier Boulevard, as staff has related to us, wouldn't be as
logistically feasible as Collier Parkway.
So I will make a motion that we rename County Road and
State Road 951 to Collier Parkway.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion. Is there a
second for the motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question. Practical question
there. Mr. Mulhere, you had said we -- if we were to name it
Collier Boulevard, we would need to start the addressing
numbers above those numbers that exist on Marco Island.
What's the problem with doing that?
MR. MULHERE: I don't think it's a problem.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And my concern is if we have
Collier Boulevard and then Collier Parkway, you could
theoretically have two buildings with very similar names and the
same number. You could have 1200 Collier Parkway and 1200
Collier Boulevard, which is trouble for your UPS man but it more
importantly potentially be trouble for EMS.
And I say that not because our EMS wouldn't know, but I
know even people who have lived in Golden Gate for years, will
sometimes -- there's a Golden Gate Parkway and a Golden Gate
Boulevard and they will sometimes slip and say the Parkway, and
either -- some will catch themselves and some won't, but
correcting themselves. And so I'm worried about emergency
service.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'll point out that on Marco
there's a North and South Collier Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would you have any objection to
Collier Boulevard?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the name of the street in
Everglades City, too? Is it Collier Boulevard or Collier Parkway?
Collier something.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's Collier Parkway, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's Parkway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know if that's relevant.
Page 28
January 11, 2000
Can we have two streets in one county with the exact same
name if they're not connected?
MR. MULHERE: Well, we would prefer not to for emergency
purposes, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody needs to find out then
what the name is in Everglades City.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unless George wants to --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If staff has no objection then to
Collier Boulevard, the entire length, if they think that's feasible
that we can do that, then I'll change my motion to that effect.
MR. MULHERE: I think we can do that. It just will require
readdressing all of the existing addresses on Marco Island, most
likely. Because you do have north and south. You do right now
have a 1200 north and south. So we'll have to look at that, but
we can take your direction, and I'm sure we can accomplish it. It
will just be -- take a little bit longer to readdress all those.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you continued the numbers --
this was my original question. If you continued your numbers
north, and if the highest number down there is 5000 north, why
would you have to readdress them? Why wouldn't you just
continue beyond that once you get off the island, 6000, 7000?
MR. MULHERE: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And another question is, since
Marco Island addresses are going to say Marco Island and not
Naples, wouldn't that take care of itself anyway?
MR. MULHERE: I think it would, except in terms of someone
saying I'm at 1200 Collier Boulevard. I think we, though, without
belaboring it, I think yes, we can accomplish it with the minimal
impact on property owners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We just -- we don't want to
cause an uproar on the island, that's all.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then I'll change my motion to
Collier Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does the second accept that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will accept that.
I agree, you know, Dr. Martin Luther King was a great
American, and I think it's very appropriate that we name
Page 29
January 11, 2000
something in this community recognizing more than it's been
recognized. But I'm with Commissioner Norris only that it's been
hammered into my head since I've been here, process is very
important. And if we're going to follow process and procedure,
we need to stay within that system when we're doing something.
So I can -- that's why I'm supporting this motion. But I don't
want it to go unrecognized that we should be doing something
more than what's been done to recognize this great American in
this community. We just need to find a way to do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before the vote, could I ask if
there's support on the board?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I heard Ms. Franklin say that they
were willing to serve on committees or to otherwise -- whatever
would be necessary to find the appropriate memorial for Dr. King.
Is there support on the board for a committee to go forward with
that as the goal?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nobody has any objection to
finding --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No objection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least we'll --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. And I'll tell you, for me
there's two reasons why I support Collier. One is the continuity
of the name, and that just kind of makes sense. Commissioner
Berry had originally brought that to light. But also because so
many people, so many residents in Collier County moved here
from somewhere else, we sometimes lose our sense of history.
And we -- those names that are -- those roads that are
named for people are named for locals who are people in our own
history here. And we don't have Lincoln Parkway or Washington
Parkway or King Parkway, we have Goodlette and Pulling and
some of our local folks. I think this stays in that vein.
With that, do we have any other comments on it?
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, one other -- the answer to your
question is in Everglades City it's Collier Avenue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Page 30
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Thanks, Bob.
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8A2
REQUEST TO WAIVE ALL FEES FOR HARVEST FOR HUMANITY -
APPROVED
Next item, 8(A)(2), a request to waive all fees associated
with the Harvest for Humanity development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait just a second. We do not
waive these fees for affordable housing projects; we do not
waive these fees for Habitat for Humanity; we do not waive these
fees for church. These properties are housing that goes up to
$120,000. I don't see any reason why we should waive these
fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think this is a project that
is unique in Collier County. It's similar to all of those that you
just cited, but unique in its possibilities for the doors that it may
open. And I want to do what we can. Frankly, it seems to me it's
the kind of project that in some communities government would
be doing instead of the private sector doing. I'm grateful and
support that the private sector is doing it, and think that out
partnership in it would be in the waiver of these fees.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere, do you have a brief
staff presentation on this?
MR. MULHERE: Well, two things: One, Greg Mihalic is here
to talk about the board's history and previous history with
Page 31
January 11, 2000
respect to impact fee deferrals versus waivers.
And I will tell you that in my recollection, I cannot think of a
single time when the board waived all of the fees -- I'm not
saying it's not inappropriate, I'm just giving you the history -- all
of the fees for a non-governmental type of petition such as this.
And of course the decision is the board's, and we would, if the
board did approve this, we would come back with a budget
amendment at the end of the year to make up those fees from
obviously non-ad valorem tax sort of --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: General fund reserves.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear again, the
source for this, and we're not sure, what is the amount?
MR. MULHERE: Well, we don't know the total amount,
because we haven't calculated all of the impact fees, if that was
included. But the fees for the development review part, the plat
review, and -- plat and construction plan reviews, building permit
fees, is in the neighborhood of seven to $8,000.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Per home. And how many
homes --
MR. MULHERE: No, singular.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. What's the total that is
likely to be waived here for this project?
MR. MULHERE: If we were to waive --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we waived everything.
MR. MULHERE: If we were to waive everything, it's tens of
thousands.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But we don't know an exact
amount.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we will get a budget
amendment in the future for the exact amount. This is merely to
give staff the direction that we intend for them to waive the fees.
MR. MULHERE: And we don't know, because as these
permits come through in the future, we will calculate the exact
impact fees, the size of the house may impact it, the number of
bathrooms, et cetera, et cetera, in terms of the impact fees and
the permit fee.
Page 32
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My point on asking the question
is, we're going to have an impact on the ad valorem tax general
fund. We don't know how much that is, and it's hard to make a
commitment. That might be 10,000, might be 50,000, might be
90,000. We don't know. And so I understand your conceptual
comment, but just from a fiscal standpoint, I'm not sure that's
sound planning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My support today is for waiving
the fees that we know of, which is in the seven to $8,000 range
that Mr. Mulhere just described. And then on a case-by-case
basis, as we see the -- as we always see impact fee waivers or
deferrals, we'll see those come forward. But --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think this project is kind of a
unique project. Granted, this is not the Iow cost housing, Iow,
Iow cost housing. But out in the area of Immokalee, there is a
need for housing in this middle range. And one of the things that
the private sector, in this case, this family, is bringing to this
community is an opportunity for this kind of housing. There's
been a concern out there for housing for teachers, for deputies,
for people in the mid range, and we don't have adequate housing
out in that area in this range.
Having said that, I would like to hear from Mr. Mihalic in
terms of the -- not waiving but the deferral of the impact fees.
My concern about this, from the impact fee standpoint, is there is
an impact, particularly when it comes to schools and things like
that. That is my concern.
The other -- as far as the review, if you're looking at 7 or
$8,000, $10,000 in review fees for the plans, that's not bad,
okay? But I think we need to really take a look at the deferral or
something like that for the impact fees.
And Greg, maybe you could tell us how this works.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes. Good morning, commissioners, I'm Greg
Mihalic of the housing and urban improvement department.
Yes, we do have impact fee waiver and deferral programs
right now that are paid for through our documentary tax stamp
SHIP funds that we get from the state. They are for first-time
Page 33
January 11, 2000
home buyers with certain income ranges.
The income that we allow a 75 percent deferral of impact
fees for owner-occupied houses for first-time home buyers will be
about $48,000 a year income. That would be the maximum
income for a family of four.
We have two other levels of impact fee assistance. One is a
50 percent waiver, 50 percent deferral for a family that makes
about $38,000 a year for a family of four. And 100 percent waiver
for a family of four that makes about $30,000 a year. But again,
those are limited to first-time home buyers for owner-occupied
houses.
If there's any rental on the development, those impact fees
would only be deferred if they're for affordable housing for a
15-year contract with limited rents. And that would be a six-year
deferral of impact fees, which saves the developer about 30
percent for the net present value of the money that's involved
there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, can't this --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second,
Commissioner Carter. Commissioner Norris was next.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was going to be one of my
points, is that we already have impact fee deferral and waiver
programs in place, that we should not be considering anything
additional to that today, because you have to qualify for that in
the first place.
But the fees that we're discussing here, nobody in this
community is more deserving of fee waivers, I would think, than
Habitat for Humanity, and we don't waive those fees for those
people. How are you going to justify waiving fees for somebody
that's buying a $120,000 home or $80,000 home when you don't
do it for Habitat for Humanity?
Next time Habitat for Humanity comes in with a series of
homes, they're going to want these fees deferred. How are you
going to say no to them if you say yes to these people? It's just
not fair. And it's not in adherence with our current policy that we
had long-standing for many, many years.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter.
Page 34
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I was just wondering, can't we
apply the SHIP formula to this universally across all applications
that come in? Can't we use that as the basis to do all of this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was my intention exactly, is
that today the only action we could possibly take is with regard
to the dollar amount we're certain of, and that is this $8,000
range of permit application fees, in that what we would be telling
staff today is that on a case-by-case basis, as these applications
come in, we want to apply our standard criteria, but to this
circumstance to determine whether or not the fees in the future
are deferred or waived.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mihalic, can you tell me
what policy in either the Land Development Code or wherever
the appropriate place would be, gives us the ability to waive all
fees associated with a building?
MR. MIHALIC: Well, there is an objective in the housing
element of the Growth Management Plan, and I don't remember
the number, that talks about assisting developers with reducing
regulatory fees. And so there is such a provision in the Growth
Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that -- that's in reference to
any developer? Bob Hardy could come in for Quail West and -- MR. MIHALIC: It doesn't specify the type of -- it just
specifies for affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It doesn't --
MR. MIHALIC: As part of the housing --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that's, I think, my main
concern here is, we are -- this is a great project, but it's not Iow
cost housing. And if we're going to dedicate particular funds,
then it ought to be toward that Iow cost element which we are
told over and over there's a shortfall of in Collier County. There
is certainly a need in the Immokalee community for this. But the
concern is if you have -- if we fund this project through general
fund this year, could there be five of them next year and you
have $500,000, and a dozen of them the next year, and you have
1.2 million dollars. And where is the end?
We set a standard here if we go ahead with this. And I don't
Page 35
January 11, 2000
know that there's a specific policy that really allows this.
And going back to Commissioner Carter's comment on an
earlier item, it's process driven. And if we want to alter the
process the way our current code allows it, then we ought to
have that discussion, but we probably not ought to tinker with it
on an individual case-by-case basis. And the process really
doesn't allow for this right now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then what we really need is we
need a policy to deal with this issue so that uniformly, as
Commissioner Norris pointed out, no matter who comes in front
of us, here's the policy, here's the framework, this is how it
works.
And *I'm more for deferral for first time than I am waiving,
because in the future that means that it depreciates and that
person sells it and whatever happens. But we need to have that
policy. If we don't have it, then I think before we can approve
this, then we need to get the policy in place so these folks can
go forward and do what they need to do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One other comment, though, is
that when this is totally built out it will be a multi-million-dollar
project, to have the thought that it's not going forward for seven
or 8,000 or $50,000 worth of fees is just absurd. So it's -- I hope
nobody's going to try to make that claim.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, do we have
speakers?
MR. McNEES'- You do. You have one representing the
petition, and I apologize if I mispronounce this. Mr. Nogaj. MR. NOGAJ: Mr. Nogaj.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. NOGAJ: Good morning, commissioners, and thank you
for the opportunity to address you this morning.
My name is Dick Nogaj, and I'm president of Harvest for
Humanity. And we are a non-for-profit organization currently
poised to bring to Immokalee badly needed affordable home
ownership opportunities to 106 mixed income families that are
currently residing in the Immokalee area.
This new Harvest housing community will be the first
Page 36
January 1 t, 2000
traditional neighborhood development in Collier County. And it
will be built as a model in a pilot project to help encourage
additionally needed residential and commercial development in
Immokalee in an effort to upgrade and bring financial stability to
Immokalee.
As you know, there have been continued efforts and
concentrated efforts to help improve Immokalee. The need for
decent and affordable home ownership housing for both Iow and
middle income families is crucial for Immokalee to be safe,
secure and stable. We can provide a new model to accomplish
these objectives, but we need your help.
You can assist this non-for-profit undertaking and help us by
waiving all the fees that would normally be required for a
for-profit developer.
Now, the benefits that would accrue to Collier County would
include increased tax revenues that would result from this
development. This is an opportunities partnership plan. Harvest
will convert 40 acres of currently existing at the minimal
property tax contribution of $3,200 per year. The individually
owned homes and condos will contribute approximately
$200,000 a year in property taxes to Collier County. New sales
taxes will be collected for 30 new jobs. They'll be traded through
three new industries: Harvest Cooperative Farm, Harvest
Blueberry Store and Harvest Landscaping Group. All will be sold
to local employees using no interest, no profit loans.
Another benefit that would accrue is increased confidence
for future development. This pilot project is designed to help
provide in more residential and commercial growth.
Approximately 200 adults and children will be provided with the
opportunity for affordable home ownership. A total of 56 condos
will be built. An estimated sale price of $50,000.
Additionally, 40 detached patio homes with three bedrooms,
two baths and a two-car garage will be built for an estimated
sale price of $80,000 each.
There currently is SHIP criteria in place that's been applied
by you folks to waive impact fees for those homes. The SHIP
criteria that we spoke of is up to 106,000. We are not asking for
Page 37
January 11, 2000
waiver of fees, impact fees, on the 10 single-family custom home
that will sell for approximately $120,000.
What is critically needed is to halt the exodus of middle
income families from Immokalee. Middle income families have
been moving from Immokalee to Lehigh and other surrounding
communities where new housing opportunities exist for them.
Without new Iow, middle income housing, the population of
Immokalee consists of some middle upper income but primarily
very Iow income families, statistics that generally constitute a
high-crime potential area.
Harvest Community will provide much needed new housing
opportunities that the working lower, middle income families are
looking for.
We're asking for a partnership on a matching fund basis. My
wife and I fortunately are bringing to this project one million
dollars to build this new activity center and the surrounding
amenities. We're bringing in another one million dollars to the
project to build the infrastructure for this community.
The new Harvest Community Activity Center will house the
blueberry store, it will house day-care centers, it will house
dining room facilities, welcome center, new eco-tourism for
Immokalee from Naples. That two million dollars represents
99-plus percent of what we're bringing to the table. We're asking
you for a $10,000 waiver on development fees. That's one item.
The entitlement recovery for these development fees is in
your grasp. This is going to be happening in 2001 as Collier
County becomes an entitlement community. So you're not
setting dangerous precedents for hundreds and hundreds of
thousands dollars of fees down the road. You can set the
process and the procedure, that's what you do. And we're asking
you to set that process based on five criteria.
If developers come to you in their 501C-3's, non-for-profits,
number one. They come to you, they're going to build in a
targeted area that you've already designated, that's number two.
They come to you to build in the empowerment zone of
Immokalee, that's number three. They come to you to build
affordable housing. Affordable being by your own criteria that's
Page 38
January 11, 2000
already set, $106,000 or less. That's set by the SHIP criteria.
You're already funding those in terms of waiver of impact fee.
And fifthly, they bring a non-for-profit builder into the picture
to build these homes at overhead only to keep them affordable in
the 50 to $80,000 range.
I think that financial assistance to Harvest is needed. This
is a small contribution to make this opportunity a reality.
Finally, the waiving of all of these fees for the construction
of the project can be Collier County's contribution for the
revitalization of Immokalee through this critically needed
project. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Nogaj, your request then is in
align with the motion that I have on the floor, and that is for a
waiver of the fees that we understand will be about $8,000 --
MR. NOGAJ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but that your projects --
building permit applications be reviewed under our existing
criteria in the future --
MR. NOGAJ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for determining whether or not
they will be available for waiver or deferral of impact fees?
MR. NOGAJ: Yes. And they'll be based on a case-by-case
basis, as you said, based on that sale of that particular home, the
price of that home, whether it qualifies, and what the income
level of that family is, whether it's deferral waiver or combination
of such, as Greg Mihalic mentioned.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions for the
speaker?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. But does that mean that it
has to come by case-by-case, or we just have the formula there
that it's a -- essentially an administrative process?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- That's my question.
Even the case-by-cases are on
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
our consent agenda.
MR. MIHALIC:
Yes, normally the impact fees are going on a
Page 39
January 11, 2000
case-by-case basis. That comes on your consent agenda. There
were several on the agenda today. We may shift that to more
administrative approval in line with an audit we just received.
But they'll be done on a case-by-case basis for those buyers. I
mean, we're really qualifying those new owners --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which is the appropriate
process --
MR. MIHALIC: -- not the developers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- as opposed to giving a blanket
approval for a development ahead of time.
MR. MIHALIC: I think that the owners will qualify for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So in line with that, I'll restate
that as the intention of my motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I need you to clarify what your
motion is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion is that we today waive
the building permit application fees up to $10,000, which we
understand they're estimated to be 7 to $8,000. MR. NOGAJ: Development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The development application
fees. I see Mr. Cautero.
MR. MULHERE: Well, the building permit fees will probably
exceed that. There are 106 buildings that are going to be built in
here. What we're talking about is site development -- or actually
plat and construction plans. I under-- everything excluding the
single-family building permit and the impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we waive the fees,
excluding single-family building permits and impact fees, and
that those fees be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in
accordance with our existing policy for waiver and deferral.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So you're waiving for all other
homes in there, or are you waiving just -- I'm still not clear, I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. My goal in this motion is
to waive the 7 to $8,000 fees that are basically the infrastructure
permit review fees, that are the plat fees, the SDP, the --
Page 40
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second. That's
the third phone. I'm pretty sure there's a little sign outside the
door that says please turn off your ringer on your telephone, for
obvious reasons. That's the third one this morning. Unless you
got your phone before 1990, they all have a silent function on
them where it will vibrate against you. If you've got something
important coming in, you can still keep it with you. But so that
we can still continue without those interruptions, I'd appreciate
it if you'd put it on the silent mode. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me -- the fees that I am
moving that we waive are the ones described in the
consideration section of Page I of the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Plat application, plat
construction?
MR. MULHERE: And site development.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And site development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
And my motion further includes that on a case-by-case
basis, the single-family home permit applications will be
reviewed in accordance with existing policy.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does the second accept that
amendment?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: One question. But there's more
than single-family homes in this project. What happens to the
other projects or the other product?
MR. NOGAJ: The condominiums or--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you've got condos, I believe.
Is that --
MR. NOGAJ: Everything is single-family. There are
condominium ownership, single-family detached ownership --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
MR. NOGAJ: -- and then larger homes which would not be --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, single-family is the
wrong word to use. I appreciate that clarification. The
residential component.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. I can support that as
a second.
Page 41
January 11, 2000
aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
Motion carries 3-2 with Commissioner Constantine and
Commissioner Norris opposed.
Item #8A3
REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT PROPERTIES IN NORTH
NAPLES (SECTIONS 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST) ARE DEVELOPED IN A COORDINATED MANNER WITH
REGARD TO PUBLIC ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES - APPROVED
Thank you. Item 8(A)(3), proposal to prepare regulations to
ensure that properties in North Naples are developed in a
coordinated manner with regard to public roads, storm drainage
water and sewer utilities.
Mr. Nino, good morning.
MR. NINO: Good morning. Ron Nino, for the record.
You will recall previous discussion, this application flows
from a concern on the part of staff that a whole number of
developments all came on board at one time in the
Whippoorwill/Livingston Road area, causing us to look at the
opportunities for an integrated plan of development and to fulfill
our conclusion that indeed a Whippoorwill Lane and an east-west
extension of that lane of that road ought to be a public road.
You seem to be in agreement with the concept that was
before you; however, you asked us to come back and to
recommend the specific alignment on the east-west road, and I
want to talk about that.
Page 42
January 11, 2000
Our recommendation is that the east-west road be the most
southerly alignment, Item No. 1. And the reason for that are
several. One, Whippor -- Livingston Village, it's the opinion of
staff that Livingston Village ought to be connected to
Whippoorwill Lane to afford the residents of this community an
opportunity to shop at the principal activity center, which is in
that location. Appreciate that Livingston and Pine Ridge is not an
activity center, will not have shopping opportunities, and it is in
the opinion of your staff, that's transportation staff and planning
staff, that this intersection would be unnecessarily burdened if
this connection were not provided.
When you consider that connection, any argument that
another route will save -- when you consider the essential nature
of that connection, any argument that argues that Item 3 is the
preferred route because it will eliminate the need to develop a
portion of Whippoorwill Lane becomes a non-argument from the
point of -- from the point of -- per the attitude of staff in the
essential nature of that interconnection.
Secondly, if you look at a more northerly route, essentially
some 600 units of housing would have to make this traffic motion
to go south. Now, that doesn't seem to make sense from our
point of view. If you made this the preferred route, than a whole
number of housing, approximately 600 units, would have to go
north when they have a southern direction point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that route --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's just hang on, because I'm
going to try to let Ron finish his --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that Route 3? That's all I want
to know.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's Route 3.
MR. NINO: That's Route 3.
And those are the two most significant points that drove
staff's position that indeed Item -- Route No. I was the preferred
route.
There are also some other arguments that suggest that
traditionally major roads or collector roads are a mile apart, not
a half a mile apart; therefore, it's ideal from the point of view of a
Page 43
January 11, 2000
traffic signalization.
We are pretty confident that Route No. I withstands the
best test of integrating this neighborhood and carrying out sound
principles of transportation planning. And if there are any
detailed technical questions with respect to transportation
issues, of course, you know Mr. Kant is here and will answer
those questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Resident expert Ed Kant is in
the audience.
Questions for either Mr. Kant or Mr. Nino?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't care which one
answers it, but I do have a question. And I don't know whether
you want to call it Route 2 or 3. It separates the Arlington PUD.
It also comes in -- and I'm talking now running east to west. We
have Kensington on the west side. And I understand there is
some concerns about Kensington coming -- looking for
signalization to come out onto Livingston Road.
And the argument might be made, and I would like some
statistical analysis here that tells me why I shouldn't have what
I'm going to call -- you may call it Route 2, some call it Route 3,
as the preferred alternative, because it does provide, if there's
signalization there, that the people coming out of Kensington
then have the opportunity to come up to Pine Ridge or they can
come across and come up over to this other road and then move
north.
Second question I have for you is one of an environmental
nature, is that there's a lake and I understand a slough that flows
down to where -- it's on a preferred route, that if you do take that
road, you're going to have to bridge that southern section so that
you've got the water flowing through there, which I think seems
to me a fairly expensive construction process.
So I need some statistical evidence at least for me that says
why is one better than what I'm going to call Route 2.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just for clarification, Mr. Nino,
is -- Route I is the southernmost. The one-half mile is Route --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Two would be the most northern.
MR. NINO: 3 is the most northerly one.
Page 44
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on, please, just for a
minute.
For clarification, the southernmost we're referring to as
Route 1.
MR. NINO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The one that's a half-mile south
that you've referred to that connects with the Kensington area,
Commissioner Carter was asking for, we're calling that Route 3.
MR. NINO: Route 3.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. On my little map here, I've
got a 2. Okay, it's 3. So whatever you want to call it.
So I would like a discussion back and forth between the
traffic flow and the environmental issues in terms of --
MR. NINO: Let me speak to that environmental issue. The
feasibility of extending Whippoorwill Lane across the Kensington
Canal has been reviewed by Southwest Water Management
District. They are prepared, from our -- from what information
we've received, to permit that road.
The only bridge that's required, of course, is the bridge over
the -- over the Kensington Canal. And it's true to the extent that
that is a minor water management facility will require some box
culvert construction.
But to suggest that it's a ma]or bridge function is probably
overemphasized. Although albeit, there is a box culvert crossing,
and yes, that will entail an additional expenditure. But it's the
opinion of staff that that expenditure is well worth the added
public benefit that accrues to the most southerly direction in
terms of affording the easiest way for a majority of these houses
to travel south on Livingston Road.
If you want to talk about the lights, the traffic lights
situation at Livingston with Kensington Park.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director.
I'm just getting over what everybody has, so I can't speak too
loudly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Please clean the microphone
when you're done.
MR. KANT: There is an existing --
Page 45
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll go get the Lysol.
MR. KANT: -- signal at Kensington and Pine Ridge -- not
Kensington, excuse me, Livingston and Pine Ridge.
And while our access management plan and good planning
would dictate minimum spacing for signals at a half mile, we go
down to a quarter of a mile. Looking at the potential in the
absence of whatever happens here, but looking at the potential
for a signal here, I would submit that that would have to be
analyzed as we would any other location, on the basis of
expected traffic.
I can't speak for the residents of Kensington. They also
have another traffic signal right here they share with the school.
And as Ron pointed out, the major desire lines coming out of
Kensington are either going to be to the west or to the south.
If this develops traffic to the extent that when a connection
is made that there is a lot of southbound traffic, those are right
turning movements. And typically they're not highly affected by
a signal in the first place.
So my professional opinion as to whether that intersection
would be signalized based on the Kensington and Arlington
traffic, it's iffy. I don't know. My crystal ball is not that good.
On the other hand, if we have a signal at this location and a
signal at this location, approximately a mile apart, this acts as
an independent signal. Independent signals don't affect the
capacity of a roadway nearly as much as coordinated signals. As
you start to move that signal spacing closer, you start dropping
signals in, it begins to affect your capacity, it begins to affect
your traffic speed. There's a lot of other factors. I don't want to
bore you with the details, but that's the short story.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we have an opportunity --
since this hasn't been done yet, we have an opportunity to make
some positive changes in terms of traffic movement.
I don't build roads. I don't know anything about building
roads. But I really would hope that, Ed, that we have some good
Page 46
January 11, 2000
reliable information, that we can go ahead and design this so we
can handle the traffic that's going to be closest to 1-75 in that
project.
And by doing what you're suggesting, with having that
southernmost route, the No. I Route, would that take the traffic
that's closest to 1-75 in that development and perhaps allow it to
go south on Livingston Road, as opposed to going up and getting
onto Pine Ridge Road? I mean, would you assume that that
would be kind of the traffic pattern that they would utilize?
MR. KANT: Yes, Commissioner. I believe that the southern
-- let me back off on the answer. The answer -- the short answer
is yes. Either location, if signalized with a road through here, will
serve that purpose. However, as Mr. Nino pointed out, there's a
whole area down here --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's the one.
MR. KANT: -- that would have to reverse direction, and
that's -- frankly, people don't like to do that. And what I would
fear is that that would tend to bring more traffic up this way and
move it over--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That is my concern.
MR. KANT: -- as supposed to getting a direct access.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I think that's been our
problem. And if we have a chance to fix the problem and help
the traffic on Pine Ridge Road and at that intersection close to
the interstate, in your best professional judgment, by having that
southernmost route, that would be preferable as opposed to up
further in the center, which would be the alternate 3, I think?
MR. KANT: That's correct, Commissioner.
MR. NINO: Let me reemphasize that in our review of the
Kensington Village -- Livingston Village PUD, we are coming --
that staff report is done. We are coming to you with a
recommendation that Livingston Village be connected to
Whippoorwill Lane; that this interface be made a condition of
that approval.
Basically, therefore, all that we're talking about, if you agree
that that interface needs to be made, then as I say, Whippoorwill
Lane has to be extended. The only thing that's under debate is
Page 47
January 11, 2000
whether that road should be a public or a private road, because
it's the intention of the developer to establish a road out to
Livingston Road.
The question then becomes do they have the right to have
an unencumbered gated community versus one with a public
road and gated communities off that public road?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes, Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think one of the concerns that
we've had in Collier County, we have a lot of gated communities
and we don't have the interconnect to access roadways. By
doing this, would we kind of alleviate that problem, even though
we may have gated communities? With -- by doing the road in
this matter, would this -- MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- take care of that?
MR. NINO: This would be a modified version of Pelican
Boulevard called Whippoorwill Lane with an east-west leg to it
and gated communities off of it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what we're going to
do. We've got about a dozen speakers on this item, so we're
going to take about a 10-minute break and then we'll come back
and get into our public speakers. (Recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, good morning, and we're
back. Flyovers everywhere. There's two.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Everywhere.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, we have 11
speakers, I understand, on this item.
MR. McNEES: Yes, we do. Now it's down to 10.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, we thought we might have a
meeting here this morning. If you want to continue your
conversation, you're more than welcome to do so in the hall.
We have 11 speakers. What we're going to ask you to do is
two things: We're going to ask you to move this over to the side
so those people can still see. We do have the visualizer on
television, so they'll be able to pick that up.
Page 48
January 11, 2000
Also, when we call one speaker, we will name the second
speaker. And we'd ask the second speaker to come up to kind of
the on-deck circle so we can keep it moving as we go. Mr. McNees, who are our first two speakers?
MR. McNEES: Your first is John Passidomo, who will be
followed by Burt Saunders.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, Mr. Passidomo.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And
congratulations.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, John Passidomo on behalf
of the owners of the Livingston Village.
Livingston Village is, as your displays will indicate to you,
located at the section line, at the proposed alternative and
preferred alternative from staff, number one.
We're here to thank staff for their every courtesy they've
extended to us, but to suggest to you that emerging issues will
help focus what we think is a comprehensive and integrated
approach at creating a public way through this area.
We certainly fully agree with the fact that the roadway
should be an east-west connector, but we'll suggest to you why
we believe that that east-west connector should be at the
half-section line, at what is commonly referred to as Night Hawk
Lane.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that --
MR. PASSIDOMO: Also--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Alternative 3?
MR. PASSIDOMO: That is Alternative 3.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PASSIDOMO: I'll also report to you that representatives
of Balmoral -- and I've handed Mr. McNees kind of an analysis
map of each of the adjacent property owners and asked him to
circulate them to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or you can put it on the
visualizer so the public can see, too.
MR. PASSIDOMO: That may be helpful.
We report to you that the representatives of Balmoral,
Page 49
January 11, 2000
Alexandria, Whippoorwill Lakes, Whippoorwill Pines, Livingston
Village and Kensington are here and prepared to address you
with a recommendation for Alternative No. 3. But we would
respectfully suggest that the analysis relates to public cost,
public benefit and viability of alternatives.
Staff made two compelling points in their presentation to
you today. The first is that the alternative proposed by staff will
afford the county an opportunity to capture the Livingston Village
traffic intending to go northwest towards the interstate.
They also suggested to you later in the presentation that
their staff report, made as part of the proposed rezoning of
Livingston Village, will require an interconnect at Livingston
Village to take advantage of that same northwest extension of
Whippoorwill Lane.
We're here to suggest to you that we acknowledge that that
is the better alternative. The interconnect is something that
we're agreeable to, the interconnect will exist, and the
interconnect will provide a means of accommodating traffic from
Livingston Village and, frankly, from Balmoral, to take the
pressure off of that intersection at Pine Ridge Road and
Livingston Road and accommodate a northwest route towards
the interstate.
We'll also suggest to you that inter -- that Alternative No. :3
at this section line, Night Hawk Lane, will accommodate traffic
out of Kensington. And you have a letter in your staff report and
representative from Kensington here with you today to share
with you what we think are two compelling points.
The first is that if the alignment is where staff proposes it to
be, staff -- the opportunity to take that traffic intending to exit
Kensington and to go northwest to the interstate will be lost.
The fact is that we cannot imagine and you cannot imagine that
those people exiting Kensington would possibly go south, go
west, go north, and then exit towards the interstate.
The better alternative, I think they're here to share with you
today, is to come right across Night Hawk and to go north on
Whippoorwill Lane and northwest towards the interstate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: West. You mean east.
Page 50
January 11, 2000
MR. PASSIDOMO: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Am I confused? East toward the
interstate?
MR. PASSIDOMO: West toward -- east toward the interstate.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: East toward.
MR. PASSIDOMO: East toward the interstate, I apologize.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm lost enough with
these roads.
MR. PASSIDOMO: I apologize.
The other compelling benefit we think you will hear today is
that there will be a case made for signalization at Night Hawk.
The opportunity today presented to the board is to capture that
opportunity once and for all and have the signalization at Night
Hawk, which will be -- we think to be enormous public pressure
for that signalization -- be captured as the only signalization
between Pine Ridge Road and Golden Gate Parkway.
Placing the interconnect where staff proposes it to be
placed will necessarily leave the board with the challenge of
having to deal with public pressure for a second proposed
signalization at Night Hawk, which we think is inevitable.
So in conclusion, we respectfully request that the board
designate the alignment at Alternative No. 3 and suggest that
there's a viable alternative which is made part of that
presentation. So instead of bisecting Arlington Park, there's an
opportunity to go to the northwest so that the development
indeed not be bisected.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's a slightly modified
Alternative 3?
MR. PASSIDOMO: We think there's an alternative available
to you.
And Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, if I could just talk
to one question staff proposed, and that was that the east-west
road shown on Alternative No. I is going to be built. The
question is, is it going to be a private road or a public road? The
fact is it's not going to be built. There is going to be no
east-west road bisecting Balmoral and Livingston Village. It will
be built only if Whippoorwill Lane is created as a public road.
Page 51
January 11, 2000
The southern extension of Whippoorwill Lane will be
created. Our only point is created with private dollars rather than
public dollars. The case has been made to you today that you
can justify the additional expense of building another half-mile of
road, bridging a canal and not having the public benefits that
Alternative No. 3 would afford you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: My question, Mr. Passidomo, you
keep talking about all of these different areas here, that they're
all going toward the interstate. Frankly, I really don't want them
all directed toward the interstate. The interstate is going to
probably fail in terms of capacity. Why do you keep saying that
we're directing traffic -- or why do you want to direct traffic
toward the interstate?
MR. PASSIDOMO: And I didn't mean to suggest that,
Commissioner. I just simply mean it -- meant to suggest that one
of the compelling public needs is to take traffic off of the
intersection of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. Night
Hawk will accommodate that public purpose.
I assume they're going to go to the interstate, and if they're
going to go to the interstate, this is the means -- better means to
go to the interstate is through Night Hawk.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But that still doesn't address the
property that's down at the Whippoorwill Woods area. How are
they accessing? Are they going to access on that strip of road?
In other words, they're going to have to go north if they want to
go south.
MR. PASSIDOMO: They will. But the fact is, they'll be able
to take advantage of signalization in order to go south. The trip
north is a relatively short one. It's about a quarter of a mile or
so. And then they will simply go south with the signal at Night
Hawk Lane.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's the current distance out at
Wyndemere where the people exit Wyndemere and have to come
to Golden Gate Parkway?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant.
I believe it's about two-thirds or three-quarters of a mile,
Page 52
January t 1, 2000
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. But that's been a concern
even of the residents that live in Wyndemere, that in order to go,
you know, in another direction, you've got to come out, you have
to go south, and then you have to go east or west, of course, and
then finally they can eventually wind around and be able to go
north again. So I just -- that's my only question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to understand, Mr.
Passidomo. If you could on the visualizer, there are -- I see Night
Hawk Lane, and then there's a dash line straight across from
there to a signalized access, and then there's a diagonal line up
above. I need to understand which is the alternative you're
proposing. I understand you are modifying staff's proposal of No.
3?
MR. PASSIDOMO: We think worthy of consideration,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, is the diagonal approach to the
northeast.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next speaker. And just as a
reminder, we've had only three speakers today, and each of them
has managed to slide over five minutes. We're going to keep it to
five minutes, and then if there are questions beyond that for the
board, that's fine. But we've got a lot of items on the agenda
today and a lot of speakers on this one in particular, so I'd ask
each of you to keep it to five minutes.
Mr. McNees, Mr. Saunders will be followed by whom?
MR. McNEES: Ken Cuyler.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
my name is Burt Saunders with the Woodward, Pires, Lombardo
Law Firm. Congratulations, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations,
Mr. Vice Chairman. I will be very brief.
I represent the contract purchaser of the Whippoorwill
Lakes PUD. And my client is not particularly concerned where
the east-west connector is, as long as there is one. I've looked
Page 53
January 11, 2000
at this from a planning standpoint, and it's my view and my
client's view that the better location is -- I'm going to use the
phrase the half-section line. The half-section line is the location
where that road will connect with Kensington.
Now, one of the arguments -- and I want to thank staff for
their courtesy and willing to meet with us. We met with them ad
nauseam and they were very willing to do that. Unfortunately we
couldn't convince them otherwise.
In Mr. Nino's opening comments about the need for this, he
pointed out that the specific need was to make sure that
Livingston Village PUD residents could get up to the shopping
area without going onto Livingston Road and without going onto
Pine Ridge. But if you take a look at -- and there are going to be
about 600 units in that PUD.
If you take a look at Kensington, they're going to be almost
the same number, about 570 units in Kensington. They want to
get to that shopping area also. You have the same argument for
them, they can't do it unless -- without going onto Livingston and
Pine Ridge, unless you have the connector at the half-section
line so that the people from Kensington could go right across
Night Hawk over to the shopping area without getting on
Livingston and getting on Pine Ridge.
So I think that that argument is a bit shortsighted. It doesn't
take into consideration all the traffic that would want to get into
that shopping area.
I -- my client agrees with Mr. Passidomo's list of reasons
why this should be located at the half-section line. I think you
capture more traffic that way. The argument that the property
owners in Whippoorwill Woods will be somewhat inconvenienced
because they have to go north for a quarter of a mile to get to
that -- their collector road I think is not a really valid one. We all
have our neighborhoods that we drive through to get to our main
arterial collectors, and a quarter of a mile is certainly not an
inconvenience to anybody.
So I would suggest that it be at the half-section line. I think
that's the best alternative to collect the most amount of traffic,
to get it off of Livingston Road and off of Pine Ridge Road. Thank
Page 54
January 11, 2000
you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the commission.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Cuyler will be followed by?
MR. McNEES: Marco Espinar.
MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler with Roetzel &
Andres. We represent Relleum and Balmoral. And I will take less
than five minutes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Bonus points for that.
MR. CUYLER: A lot of my prepared statements have already
been mentioned. I'm not going to reiterate those.
But I do want to say that the board asked us two things: To
work with the other property owners and to try to work with
staff.
As you can see from the map that's been handed out, the
majority of the property owners agree that it is the half-section
line that is the appropriate location for the east-west connector.
That is going to provide access for Kensington. That seems the
most logical place.
I think with regard to the traffic light, you're a public body;
you understand residents standing in front of you better than
anybody in the room. And Kensington residents are going to
want that traffic light. If you put one at the section line, you're
going to end up with two traffic lights. And if you ask Mr. Kant
his professional opinion, I assume he will tell you that one traffic
light in that area is better than two traffic lights.
One of the two points that I think Mr. Nino made with regard
to the support for the southerly east-west at that section line
was that Whippoorwill Woods is not going to want to go north to
the half-section. That's the approved PUD. That's the one PUD
that's already approved in this area. They're not going to want to
go north and then to the west and then south.
When Whippoorwill Woods was approved, none of these
issues had come up. Whippoorwill Woods was going to go all the
way up to Pine Ridge and then they were going to take a left and
go south. So I think that is a completely invalid comment with
regard to supporting staff's position.
We respect staff, we respect their opinion, but we disagree,
Page 55
January 11, 2000
and we do not see the logic of it in this case. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Mr. Espinar will be
followed by?
MR. McNEES: Dominique Rihs.
MR. ESPINAR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Marco Espinar with Collier Environmental Consultants, on
behalf of Livingston Village. I'm here to talk to you in support of
Alternative No. 3 through Night Hawk Lane. Basically I'll be
really brief.
My concerns are environmental, okay? You're going to be
crossing wetlands when you extend this road. Whether it's going
to be at Night Hawk Lane or at the south. To me it only makes
sense, if you're going to cross a wetland, and these wetlands are
equal, and they're poor quality and the impacts proposed are
equal, okay? The only difference is if you're going to cross a
wetland, cross it at the headwaters, not at the tail end. If you
cross wetlands at the tail end, you have the potential of flooding
problems. And this is going to be a flowway, okay?
So again, I reiterate, if you're going to cross this flowway,
cross it at the headwaters, where you reduce the potential of
flooding in the future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but I don't understand
that. It appears to be perfectly logical, but why do you reduce
flooding by crossing at the headwaters instead of toward the
end?
MR. ESPINAR: Well, this is going to be a flowway system,
okay? Water -- everybody's going to be discharging into this
flowway, all right. When you get down to the end, everybody's
already discharged into this flowway, okay?
And let's talk about trash. You can get trash blocking the
culverts and, you know, with maintenance and stuff like that.
Eventually you will start backing that water up. Well, if you put
the culverts at the north, everybody will be discharging, you'll be
Page 56
January 11, 2000
alleviating the flooding towards the tail end of the flowway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just because of accumulation of
MR. ESPINAR: Accumulation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- debris?
MR. ESPINAR: Accumulation. Basically that's what it is, an
accumulative effect by everybody discharging at that flowway.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. ESPINAR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Staff might make a note of that.
I think we may have a question on that at the end.
Ms. Rihs will be followed by?
MR. McNEES: lan Butler.
MS. RIHS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Dominique Rihs. I'm both the trustee of Land Trust 5146, which
is better known as Arlington Lakes, and I'm also an attorney.
And I think I need to address immediately something that
has been missed through these discussions. When we first
began with the commissioners, the problem with Section 18 was
both drainage and traffic. We are the pivotal point for drainage
to be solved. We are the 300-foot wide flowway, which is a
natural flowway. It's not a canal, it is not to be crossed. And we
have agreed with Corps and Southwest Water District that we
would go forward with that.
We are basically solving Section 18's drainage problems.
This bisects our property. It's 300 feet wide. To try to cross it
with a bridge is between 260,000 and $500,000. Once you cross
it, you're over on to Racket (phonetic) Park property. That will
be shown by Mr. Butler.
So basically the public benefit is the flowway is what our
contribution is. To then try to go over it with an east-west road
does not make any sense.
I of course am recommending, along with staff, for their
reasons, and for additional reasons, that the east-west road
needs to be at the section line. It has been shown that the
capacity of Livingston Road will be the greatest and the of most
benefit if the signalization presently will be at the section line
Page 57
January 11, 2000
and then of course at Livingston/Pine Ridge.
If at some point in the future signalization is needed for
Kensington, that can be addressed at that time. But the
east-west road needs to be at the section line so that it's the
most benefit to the public.
It will be a surfeit of traffic all the way around, which will
alleviate the traffic pressures on both Pine Ridge Road and the
Livingston/Pine Ridge intersection and also the intersection of
Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge.
Basically the Corps has stated that by going across the
flowway, that just totally annuliates (sic) their whole purpose of
the flowway, so the arguments before us do not make any sense.
Also, to basically have a dead-end on Whippoorwill, that
doesn't work either. You're not integrating, you're not getting
traffic flow.
The other part about the cost to the public does not make
sense either, because the commissioners on December 20th
agreed to put both the Whippoorwill Road -- or Whippoorwill Lane
and the east-west connector lane on the traffic circulation.
Therefore, there's no problem here between public and
private. You've already agreed, you're going to give impact fees,
so the public is going to get the greatest benefit when there is an
integration of all neighborhoods, the signalization works,
Kensington can get a signalization, if they need it at a later time.
This is not what's in front of you today. Today is where is the
best location for your east-west road. And I believe staff has
shown it to be at the right place for all of their reasons, not to
mention the effect on the flowway.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just to be clear, you're
representing the Arlington Lakes PUD, and you're saying that you
are opposed to Alignment 3?
MS. RIHS: Yes, you are bisecting our property the third
time, to be very honest. We will basically look like a lattice pie
at this point if you allow it to go through.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Butler will be followed by?
Page 58
January 11, 2000
MR. McNEES'. Bill McAnley.
MR. BUTLER: Good morning, Commissioners. lan Butler of
Butler Environmental, representing Arlington Lakes. I've been
the environmental consultant on this property for the past two
years.
Just to reiterate what Ms. Rihs said, we are in agreement
with staff's opinion on locating the road at the section line.
There's a big issue that a lot of people seem to miss here, is the
environmental aspect of the location of this road.
The flowway that we have proposed through our property, as
Ms. Rihs said, is 300 feet wide, compromising 20 acres. That's
20 percent of the project site.
One of the big key issues in preapplication meetings we had
with the Corps and the Water Management District is if we were
going to provide this regionally beneficial flowway to solve the
drainage problems in this area was to not cross it, have a natural
system transporting water through a meandering stream,
discharging ultimately into the Kensington ditch, going south
from there. They want to stay away from canals and ditches
going through a natural system, which is a better deal.
Now, crossing, if we were to cross this flowway, whether
it's through culverts, bridging it, et cetera, would compromise
the integrity and the environmental value of the -- or the whole
concept of having a flowway.
Again, the costs associated with spanning a 300-foot wide
flowway with a bridge, as Ms. Rihs said and explained, could be
up to $500,000.
But the key here is the environmental aspect of this. If you
look on this map, it's kind of difficult to tell, but the whole
western half of Arlington Lakes are wetlands. So if you were to
bisect this project with a road, you're also isolating wetlands,
their secondary and cumulative impacts that you would have to
address, also.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. McAnley will be followed by?
MR. McNEES: Will be followed by Greg Wardeberg.
MR. McANLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Page 59
January 11, 2000
Bill McAnley. I represent -- I'm engineer for the Arlington Lakes
PUD.
We agree completely with staff, for a number of reasons,
that Alternate Route No. I is the most feasible route, most
appropriate route for this project, particularly for the traffic. But
the traffic has been discussed quite at length here. I'm not going
to talk about the traffic.
But from a drainage standpoint, as you may know, South
Florida Water Management District and the Corps are -- in order
to develop any parcel in this project, they are asking for a unified
drainage plan for the entire section.
And I can assure you that Alternate I will lend itself more
easily to coming up with a plan that will satisfy the Corps with
this flowway than either other alternate of 2 or 3. And the
reason, because it keeps the flowway intact the way that the
Army Corps of Engineers would like to have it, and it's the most
direct route, the only outfall in the entire area.
So being very brief and from that standpoint from a drainage
standpoint, we think that Alternate No. 3 is by far the most
appropriate from the drainage standpoint.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you mean to say 3?
MR. McANLEY: I mean 1. Excuse me, 3 is not the best.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I is the good one.
MR. McANLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Wardeberg will be followed by Richard
Henderlong.
MR. WARDEBERG: Good morning. I'm Greg Wardeberg with
Relleum, Incorporated. I'm representing the Balmoral PUD.
We are definitely in favor of Option 3 as far as this road
alignment goes. It -- if we were to consider the other option, it
would definitely impact our community. With Alternative 3, we
would only have Livingston Road access. With the southerly
access at the section line, we would have roads around 60
percent of our property, which certainly is not what we had in
mind when we bought this property eight years ago to develop a
passive residential community.
Page 60
January 11, 2000
I guess the other thing I wanted to mention is that my
background is in civil engineering, and I would agree with what
Marco Espinar said, if you're going to cross this flowway, I think
the agencies are more likely to consider the narrower crossing at
the headwaters of the flowway versus when it gets down to the
lake in Arlington Lakes and then runs across Whippoorwill at the
bottom there. You can see where the green area is shaded
there? That's where that flowway will ultimately cross into.
You're going to cross the flowway one way or the other.
And I believe that it's better to cross it up at the headwaters,
versus the downstream location the southerly route would take
it.
I guess that's all I had to add.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Henderlong will be followed by?
MR. McNEES: Your last speaker then will be Rich
Yovanovich.
MR. HENDERLONG: Good morning, Commissioners, and
congratulations, Chairman, Vice Chairman on your appointment.
I'm here today on behalf-- Mr. Mangin (phonetic), our president,
could not make today's meeting.
I presume you got your letter in the mail and everybody has
a copy of that, so I won't reiterate those points.
Kensington was planned in 1991; was required at that time
that the staff have an eastern -- that the project have an eastern
gated community with a signalized intersection. The developer
committed to and was required by the county at that time to help
pay and provide for a fair share cost funding.
Residents want that intersection, would like to see it
signalized, and directly feel that the east-west connector
between the activity center itself would directly minimize their
movements onto the already congested Pine Ridge Road.
That Pine Ridge Road is -- nobody -- everybody knows how
badly congested it is. We had over 1,000 traffic counts as of
Wednesday. Our guard security gate said that his movements
were just incredible. Some of the residents had talked in our
December budget meeting about what we can do to accelerate
Page 61
January 11, 2000
the improvements on Livingston Road.
This Alignment Alternative 3 benefits Kensington and all its
residents. I think you've got a win/win situation here. You can
still go ahead and see Whippoorwill Lane constructed. It will
happen. You're talking about one particular project having an
opportunity. I think there are more public benefits that are
directly related to the abutting properties and all the future
residents. We're existing residents there.
That gives them movement to a neighborhood community
convenience center. It gives them a full opportunity and a
complement of trying to give -- stay off of the Pine Ridge Road
and minimize your interstate traffic congestion that comes off of
that alignment.
So we're here to urge you and support you and recommend
that despite staff's opinions and attitudes, which is what I've
been able to surmise, I haven't seen technical traffic studies
done. The normal things that I would expect to see in good
planning practices just aren't here. We have a lot of opinions.
You have to balance stormwater environment issues versus cost
benefits.
The residents would urge you to seek this alternative, and if
you came back and found that there was not another viable
alternative, that's fine. But right now this is the best alternative
to benefit the public, and these are the residents that I'm here
representing today and urge you to support. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Henderlong, I have a question.
MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not really familiar with the
progress inside of Kensington at the moment, but is there an
opportunity at your southeast corner of your development to
make an interconnection with the Alignment No. I signalization
at Livingston Road? Would there be that opportunity?
MR. HENDERLONG: I do not think so, and I'll tell you why.
There are two reasons: It's the primary outfall for the
subdivision, it's where our drainage ditch runs.
Secondly, the property involves a different property owner.
Thirdly, you have the ma]or FP&L easement, 235 linear feet
Page 62
January 11, 2000
of the easement to work with. You'll have to work with FP&L on
that alignment.
And most importantly, we platted, funded and paid for
120-foot road right-of-way entrance where the current easement
is. So I feel comfortable in assuring you that the residents would
not support that. They're comfortable with what's there.
Properties have already been developed in that southeastern
corner, and everybody pretty much understands that that's a
private gated community, and their eastern access would be
where it currently is today.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And our final speaker is Mr.
Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, commissioners. Rich
Yovanovich. We represent Whippoorwill Woods, which is the only
approved PUD in the area.
I want to commend staff for taking the time to try to solve
this issue, an issue that obviously was not identified until there
was a rush to develop along Whippoorwill Lane.
I want to state originally when staff came up with the
east-west connector, we were opposed to that idea. It was just
going to add cost to our project and it's something we had not
anticipated when we were going to develop the project.
But staff came up with a reasonable solution that was a
win/win for everybody by providing impact fee credits, because
this is a public road that will benefit everybody in that area. So
we want to thank staff for coming up with a -- you've heard the
word win/win a few times, and depending on which property you
own, it depends on whether it's a win/win or not. But it happens
to be a win/win situation for everybody in that area, including us,
when we were not involved in the situation originally.
Contrary to what has been said, Whippoorwill Woods really
doesn't have a dog in this fight as to where the location of the
east-west road is. So what we would like to do is -- and we have,
we have met with staff, we've asked them what they think is the
best solution, and we think that their evidence and their
arguments are the correct arguments, that the No. I
Page 63
January 11, 2000
recommendation is in fact the best location of the east-west
road.
Under all of the scenarios in front of you, somebody's going
to be unhappy. It's going to either be Livingston Village or it's
going to be Arlington. I think you need to look at who will get the
most benefit from this road.
As I understand today's presentation, Livingston Village will
be connecting to Whippoorwill Lane anyway. So obviously, in
order to connect to that road, we're going to have to build the
road all the way to the canal. So I wanted to point that out.
We would like you to follow staff's recommendation. We
think that they've looked at it comprehensively and they have
looked at the cost benefit analysis for everybody involved, and
we would encourage you to follow staff's No. I recommendation,
including acquiring the necessary right-of-way to make this
happen.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
We have heard from all the paid representatives of the
property owners. Let's hear again from the people who are paid
to represent the public, shall we?
Mr. Nino, I think we're going to have a number of questions
for you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I have one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just has there been a traffic
analysis done? Because my question is, of the two alignments
that we're now really seriously looking at, I and 3, which one
reduces traffic greatest on Pine Ridge Road, I or 3? Which
reduces Pine Ridge Road traffic more, No. I or No. 3? Or have
we done the analysis to know?
MR. NINO: We suspect Pine Ridge Road --
MR. KANT: Edward Kant.
I don't -- I've not done that analysis. I can't give you a direct
answer. But the potential is there in either case. So without any
further analysis, I can't give you a number.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because to me, that's a very
close call. Common sense, it looks to me like I would most likely
Page 64
January 11, 2000
reduce traffic off of Pine Ridge, and that's -- and the question this
-- that is this close, I'm looking for, you know, how to make the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a way to reword that,
Mr. Kant? Is there one direction or the other that more
conveniently moves traffic or more safely moves traffic? Or in
your professional opinion as a transportation planner, is one of
these better than the other?
MR. KANT: As I've stated previously, I believe that the more
southerly route is the more desirable route for several reasons,
not the least of which is that it does pick up, if you will, more of
the internal traffic. It also provides the opportunities for the
southbound movement, which is a very important movement,
which is the movement which is probably going to be the critical
movement at Pine Ridge.
There have been a number of arguments made by some of
the other property owners' representatives with respect to the
signalization at Kensington and how we're trading one location
for another. And I would submit to you, it's not that simple.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one other transportation
question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that is, we heard from Mr.
Henderlong that there's not enthusiasm, anyway, on the part of
Kensington for having an interconnection at their southeasterly
corner. But is it possible?
MR. KANT: Excuse me one second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was the same question I think
you asked, Commissioner Norris. Is it possible to have -- what's
happening inside Kensington? Is it built up to the point that they
couldn't move their access if we chose Route I so that we could
get the benefits of the single signal?
MR. KANT: It would be my opinion that subject to what they
choose to do inside, yes, that could be made to happen. But
that's a business decision I think that those people would have
to make. We would not be opposed to having that access at that
point.
Again, considering that the major access in and out of
Page 65
January 11, 2000
Kensington is still Pine Ridge Road, and any access onto
Livingston Road is going to assist, especially at those times
when they have the tennis tournaments, the golf tournaments.
But playing neither, I°m not sure which it is they hold there, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last other question is --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Actually neither, starting this
year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that right?
To the extent that they have already spent money, though,
they've spent I think you said $1,200,000 putting in an access, is
there some way that they could get impact fee credits or
otherwise be compensated if we required that that be moved to
the more southerly point? Or will they then have a claim that
we've made them spend a million bucks for nothing and we're
going to get in trouble there?
MR. KANT: Well, they obviously can claim what they wish to
claim.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. KANT: However, I would submit that impact fees are
probably not an appropriate vehicle. The board could agree to
some type of a cost-sharing arrangement, provided there were
funds available. But I would not be able to recommend impact
fees in that particular type of a case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I guess so. That's strictly
an internal road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
MR. NINO: May I supplement that answer, though?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You may.
MR. NINO: The Kensington exit onto Livingston Road was
not designed for the purpose of getting to some shopping center.
It was designed for the purpose of getting access to Livingston
Road, an arterial road that would run north-south throughout the
county.
The argument that somehow or other now the Kensington
residents are going to through Night Hawk, basically a local
street to get to the shopping center, I don't think has much
weight, quite frankly. I don't think that's going to be a desired
Page 66
January 11, 2000
alternative on the part of Kensington residents.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question for Mr. Butler.
This has to do with the environment. And it was stated before
that it would be better to cross at the headwaters of this
sensitive area as opposed to the lower end of it, the tail end of it.
In your professional opinion, how do you feel about that?
MR. BUTLER: The thing we're trying to avoid is the crossing,
period. Regardless of where you cross it, you're going to go
effect the environmental value of that flowway, which we are
trying to reestablish.
Again, you know, one thing you've got to remember is the
distance that you're crossing. If you cross through the flowway
through Arlington Lakes, it's 300 feet, versus the ditch, which is
60 feet wide.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. That ditch that you're
speaking of, where would that run, exactly?
MR. BUTLER: That's the Kensington ditch, the ditch that
runs along the section line.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. That's the one down where
we're looking at Alternate 17 MR. BUTLER: 1, yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that correct?
MR. BUTLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that would be the only place.
All right, then let's go back to Whippoorwill Lane.
Whippoorwill Lane, if that road is extended, will that be crossing
MR. NINO: Let me supplement that question.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- this flowway?
MR. NINO: Let me supplement that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MR. NINO: What we're basically talking about here, if the
road was to do this, then the argument is that there be a bridge
there at that part of the slough way -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MR. NINO: -- versus here if we eliminated the No. I
Page 67
January 11, 2000
alternative.
First of all, let me say that neither one of these involve
building a bridge. You don't build a bridge over these things, you
build a regular road with a subbase that has a drainage system
that doesn't impede the flowway. So we're not talking about a
bridge.
So it's -- the question is, do we impede the flowway or place
some potential restrictions on the flowway here or here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the -- and the -- I'm sorry, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you want to elaborate on that?
MR. BUTLER: Just to elaborate a bit on that.
Again, our preapplication meetings and several phone
conversations with the permitting agencies have made it very
evident to us that if we cross the flowway, the integrity, the
intent of it is -- goes right down the tubes. So by us dedicating
20 acres, 20 percent of our project site to provide a regional
benefit in this area and then to come in and cross it with
culverts, box culverts, something to that effect, just completely
wipes that idea out.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me ask this question: Is
there any way to cross it without ruining the integrity? Can you
build a bridge? Is there some other alternative, which will
trigger my question is, where is -- what's the position of the Big
Cypress Basin on -- or yeah, John Boldt's group and also Clarence
Tear's group, where are we as regards to their position so that
we don't damage this flowway or have minimum damage? So is
there an answer?
MR. BUTLER: Obviously there's different scenarios, different
options for crossing. A 300-foot span bridge would be identical
with their -- ideal for this.
Now, again, cost analysis of that is half a million dollars, so
that really is not feasible in this case. Reducing that down to
box culverts or to regular culverts impedes the flow of the water,
reduces the integrity of what I've spoken of before.
The only one option -- Option I is no crossing. Option 2
would be a bridge. The cost associated with that just is not
Page 68
January 11, 2000
feasible for us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On that aerial -- Mr. Kant, on that
aerial it appears that there's a road there already. Does that go
all the way down to the canal? MR. KANT: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, right there.
MR. KANT: The north-south road?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. KANT: There is a rudimentary road in there. It's a dirt
road. The northerly quarter a mile or so down to Hospice is the
paved portion. And the right-of-way in there is somewhat of a
checkerboard. We've talked with the various development
interests, and they're aware that there has to be some
right-of-way consideration for any road.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my question, actually is
does that north-south roadway go all the way south down to
where the canal is?
MR. KANT: Almost. I believe right where Mr. Butler's finger
is, it kind of peters out. There's a field down there. Depending
on what you're driving, you could possibly make it all the way
south.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my point is then that
flowway has already been breached.
MR. KANT: Yeah, the series of dirt roads in there, I
remember driving around in there 20 some odd years ago and
those roads haven't changed, I don't think, in all that time.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And exactly the -- I think we're
all asking pieces of the same question; and that is, with regard
to the permitability from the big Cyprus Basin and South Florida
Water Management, the fact that that road, dirt road, whatever it
is, currently does cross the flowway, is that something that the
district is requiring you to take out as a restoration?
MR. BUTLER: No, they understand that the flowway would
have to be connected to Whippoorwill Woods via some kind of
Page 69
January 11, 2000
water management structure, culverts to that effect. So there --
no, the road would not be taken out. There would be some kind
of crossing underneath the road. Again --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if there already is that -- so
Commissioner Norris' point, because I was getting sold on the
fact that it made no sense to cross -- to, quote, cross this
300-foot slough, because we couldn't cross it, as you were
saying. We would actually ditch it and culvert, which destroys
the whole benefit of the filtering, meandering, all that stuff. We'd
be back to doing Golden Gate Canal, you know, slice and dice,
which is not the modern way to do it.
But now you're telling me that it's already going to have a
culvert?
MR. BUTLER: Well, you've got to understand, too, I mean,
we're -- the flowway that we've proposed is approximately
three-quarters of a mile long. It's a significant portion of our
project.
Now, yes, it's going to have crossings to some degree under
Whippoorwill Lane, just because the road is there. Once it
leaves our property, it's really up to the next-door neighbors to
take it into consideration. You start checkerboarding this with
different crossings -- you know, one of them is bad enough as it
is. You start getting one of them in there, two of them, and it's a
snowball effect.
MR. KANT: I might submit--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Kant?
MR. KANT: -- commissioners, that this issue -- and I don't
want to beat it to death, it's been beaten. But this issue is in a
much smaller scale, very similar to what we've just gone through
in recent years with the northern portion of Livingston Road,
north of Immokalee Road, the so-called "S" curve. Those types
of issues come up time and time again.
And I would submit that there is some engineering ingenuity
that's going to have to be applied. But regardless of what
happens to that road or how far it extends north or south, we'll
have to resolve those issues.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Kant, two quick questions,
Page 70
January 11, 2000
just to keep this in perspective, and that is, one, the road that
Commissioner Norris just inquired about, is that at county
standard right now?
MR. KANT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And is it in the summertime
anyway when we have our rainy season, is it often under water,
or certain portions of it are?
MR. KANT: Portions of it, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And so when we talk about
flowway and if it's interrupted and so on, it may be, but it's a dirt
road that is a water road part of the time in the summer.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that last question, just -- this
is too simplistic, Mr. Kant. But if we were to learn our lesson
based on the "S" curve of Livingston, applying those lessons to
this case, we would support Alternate 1; true or false?
MR. KANT: I think that's a reasonable conclusion, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's -- I think I'm finally
getting there on why Alternate I is the best choice.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
board?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, it seems as if the permitting
can be done, I think is where I'm going, and I'm troubled when
we say we can't do something because we have to expend some
dollars. And I don't want to trade that off against the
environment. I want to know, can we get it permitted? Can we
do it? And can I work, taking into consideration the
environmental and traffic consideration? Can we do all of that?
And I will address that to Mr. Kant, Mr. Nino, whoever wants
to answer that, without, I'm going to say, going cheap on the
environment.
MR. KANT: I believe that the proposal is permittable. But
we've had some preliminary discussions with the Corps and the
district with respect to Livingston Road, and I think some of
those same issues will come up. As I said, we haven't
investigated it, because our thrust is, of course, Livingston Road,
and then we would hope that depending on what your decision is,
Page 71
January 11, 2000
the development community would come together and help us
put this road on the map and our -- what we're putting on the
table is the impact fee credits if it -- when it goes on the
network.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When you say it's permittable,
are you talking about I or 3?
MR. KANT: Ultimately I think either one of those would be
permittable. Obviously there are other costs and other issues,
one of which, not the least of which, will be mitigation. I'm not
an environmental expert, so I don't really want to get too far into
that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like
to make a motion to accept staff's recommendation of Alternate
1.
And also looking at the Kensington entrance or exit, they
will have a right turn out onto Livingston Road, so they do have
access to Livingston Road. And I think that was the intention
years ago when that development was done.
So I would like to make a motion that we accept staff's
recommendation for Alternate 1.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second that and assume
you're including all of the staff's recommendations?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, a
question?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
say.
No, that's what I was going to
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I just --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion and a second.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a comment and that is, that
I'm not for a second presuming, just because I asked a question
about whether or not Kensington could change their connection
to Livingston. I'm casting my vote based on the assumption that
they cannot, because Mr. Henderlong has indicated that they
cannot. So I just want to give him a little comfort there.
Page 72
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
more than welcome to.
aye.
Though if they want to, they're
Further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
Anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8A4
REPORT ON DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCREASED
PROACTIVE SIGN ENFORCEMENT AND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
IMPLEMENT OUTLINED NEEDS - TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE
MEETING
Next item is 8(A)(4), to provide a report on fundamental
requirements for increased proactive sign enforcement.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, before we --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second. I think
Commissioner Norris had something here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, this is for two new
investigators; am I correct?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I think so.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One customer service agent and
two investigators.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is whether or not
that's adequate. Because, you know, we're making some big, big
commitments here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Arnold, how are you today?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, we haven't made those
commitments yet.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, that was -- there was one other
issue that for purposes of context, we felt like we'd be
irresponsible if we didn't frame this discussion just a little bit.
We're here obviously at your direction with these items, and Mr.
Page 73
January 11, 2000
Cautero would like to paint the picture a little bit before you
actually approve these.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero. Thank you Mr. Chairman,
and members of the commission.
I think that this is essential to Commissioner Mac'Kie's
question that she just raised. As we talk about this issue, I
would like you to keep something in the back of your mind, and
as we've taken your directions in bringing this forward to work
on proposals to add staff.
Several months ago you remember that I was before you
with staff members talking about increased code enforcement
activities in Immokalee related to substandard housing. We will
be bringing back an established report to you soon on that.
But as you go through this exercise and as you start talking
about other items related to code enforcement through various
means, staff presentations, contacts with the constituents, we
hope to be able to have a longer discussion with you during the
budget on priorities, and I would like for you to keep that in the
back of your mind as we talk.
Do you believe we should have a proactive code
enforcement policy which is really related on the large scale to
these kinds of priorities? If we treat everything equal, which I'd
like to call the Rudy Guilianni theory, when he was interviewed
on 60 Minutes last week, when he talked about every type of
enforcement activity the law enforcement department is involved
in New York City is treated exactly the same. And he believes
that is the way serious crimes are eliminated in their particular
city.
If we do that, if we treat weed and grass complaints, which I
think, personally, are on the bottom of the food chain, if you will,
related to substandard housing issues, which I personally believe
are professionally on the top, if we treat all of them the same, we
need to structure ourselves in a different way.
If we look at large-scale issues that you believe are
important, we have to structure ourselves differently. I don't
think we can continue to operate and treat things the same. If
we're going to look at sign enforcement -- and the
Page 74
January 11, 2000
recommendation before you was based upon where we thought
you were headed at the first reading in December. And
Michelle's going to talk about that in a little bit. And that goes to
Commissioner Mac'Kie's question. We may need more people,
but you have to decide where you want that from the large scale.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we'll have that discussion
obviously in detail at the budget hearing. But I would imagine
that somewhere between reactive and not responding unless you
get a complaint and being proactive and treating every single
item you see out there the same, that there's some space in
between those two things.
And unfortunately, we get some concerns in the reactive
mode that we have, because they're loaded up already as-is, that
some of our folks will drive right by existing complaints and only
go to the ones they've been assigned. And I'm sure all of us want
to get beyond that. But that's -- I appreciate that, and I'm sure
we'll all tuck it in our minds and we'll have that discussion at the
budget hearing.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think that staff has raised a
valid point here. And certainly when we were talking about the
sign ordinance changes and so forth, it was readily recognized
that perhaps they needed more help in that area to carry out.
But I think we have to stop and think, too, that is this community
clamoring for the sign police?
Okay. I will tell you, and you certainly -- every one of us
sitting up here have certainly heard comments about looking at
housing codes and those kinds of things. And I think that you
can certainly look at what the community has said in terms of
what they think is important.
Now, I don't know how many of you have received calls in
regard to the sign police. But I can tell you that I have received
calls in terms of when are you going to tighten up and get people
to get out and look at some of the issues in terms of housing
conditions, and that you need more help doing that.
Page 75
January 11, 2000
I think we run into some problems here when we start
looking at these items -- Commissioner, I know you've pointed
this out several times -- when you start looking at items
regarding the budget in isolation. And when you start doing this,
here we are in the month of January, and we're looking at, as I
look here, almost a $200,000 expenditure.
Now, I'm not minimizing the sign police, but I think we do
have to look at a priority and we have to look at it in relationship
to priorities in this community.
And as I said, I have not received the phone calls that say
go out and start doing something about signage. I believe that
came to us in regard to the fact that we were looking at a
change in the sign ordinance. And in order to get us to where a
majority of the board said they wanted to do this, I believe that
Michelle rightfully so has said it's going to require some more
bodies to handle this load. And I think that's fair. I don't think we
can ask any more. But I think when we look at the big picture on
this, I think we have to look at the total expectancy of the Code
Enforcement Department.
Now, is it more important to look at houses and make sure
that everything is being followed there, or is it more important to
go out and see if a sign is proper? And I will tell you from a
human standpoint, I'm more concerned about housing conditions,
that we don't have electric wires laying on the ground. And I'm
not saying that we do, but I'm more convinced that we need to
look at those aspects than we do whether a sign is sitting five
feet or two feet or proper height one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My hope is that it's not an
either/or. Because clearly the housing codes are the priority, but
we shouldn't abandon the others.
Let's get to staff and then we'll ask questions. I know you
have some, too, but let's get some advice.
MS. ARNOLD: Just in response, yes, I think I would support
looking at how we do business on a more comprehensive level
and bring that back to the board during the budget hearing so
that we can make adjustments as identified.
I was asked by you all to come back with recommendations
Page 76
January 11, 2000
as far as staffing, as Mr. Cautero identified. That was based on
the initial proposal for an amortization schedule for three years
for signs prior to '91 and then a 10-year schedule after that time
period for all nonconforming signs. And so based on the numbers
and, you know, looking at what staff can do on a proactive level,
I came back with the proposal that's before you.
However, the discussion that took place at the last hearing,
I would venture to say that I would probably need more
personnel, if the intent of the board is to be more proactive
rather than reactive, as we are doing business today.
And to address the health, safety issue, yes, Commissioner
Constantine is absolutely correct, we do address health, safety
issues first. That's our first priority, before, you know, the weed
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Tree house.
MS. ARNOLD: -- type things. Yes, or the tree house.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's true, how is it possible
that we've had time for tree houses when we -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Complaints.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- have such significant problems
in real -- the items that Commissioner Berry identified?
MR. CAUTERO: I'd like to address that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
MR. CAUTERO: I really would. Thank you. Vince Cautero.
It goes back to the reactive nature of our business. 25,000
complaints a year, 20 -- approximately 22 investigators. But I
will submit to you that the public perception was that was not
important. Those were safety issues, both of them. One had
wires exposed along the backyard. And by the owner's own
admission, it was a problem.
The second one was an elevated tree structure, a tree
house, an elevated structure of over 200 square feet, with severe
setback limitations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The second one I find it hard to
get excited about.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we try to keep our
discussion on the item at hand? And that is, we have an agenda
Page 77
January 11, 2000
item in front of us, if we want to add positions or not. And I
understand there's a big picture here. And if we decide we want
to do something else during budget, that's fine, but let's try to
stay fairly close to what the agenda has.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a suggestion here. I think
on the reflection here that we're doing the cart before the horse,
because later in our agenda we're going to talk about what it is
we're going to do with the sign ordinance, and maybe we should
just table this until we have that discussion to see if we're going
to do something and what it is we're going to do. Maybe that will
clear up the question of how many people do we actually need.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion to table?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
MS. ARNOLD: And that will be tabled after that --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Until later in the day, you got it.
Any objection to that?
MR. CAUTERO: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just a final note on that is the
one thing we'll have to consider as part of that is regardless of
what we do, our own summary report here says -- talks about the
multitude of illegal signs that exist. And we have to decide,
regardless of what we do, if it's acceptable, to know that we're
not enforcing the law.
Item #8A5
DRAFT RESPONSE TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS (CORPS} ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(ELS) FINAL REPORT- APPROVED WITH CHANGES
Next item is consideration of a draft response to the United
States Army Corps of Engineers.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes.
Page 78
January 11, 2000
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, would you vote on
that motion just to close that out, the motion to table, please?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No objection was recorded.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning
director.
I have prepared a draft response for the chairman's
signature to the Army Corps of Engineers. The response period,
as I understand it, ends January 15th, so we would need to send
this letter with any changes that you might deem necessary out
fairly quickly. It reflects the information that we previously
brought to you and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
MR. MULHERE: -- I think it's consistent with Lee County's
position as well.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion? Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this asking for an additional
extension in addition to the one that they've already told us they
will give us? When they were here before, they said we're giving
you more time.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. What it is suggesting is after they
bring all of the issues together in a final document that they
again allow the local governments to measure those impacts
against their comprehensive plan through a public hearing
process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what would be -- if we
continued the logic for the need for that, then there would be a
comment period for that, and then we'll have comments. If the
logic were to continue, how would the comment period ever end?
MR. MULHERE: I think the problem that we see is that, for
example, with respect to water quality, the information is not
accurate, it's not complete, and we would like for to it be
accurate and complete before we give it a blessing. That's from
Page 79
January 11, 2000
your staff's perspective.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nevertheless, my question,
though, is if-- the reason we need an additional comment period
is to respond to the changes coming out of the first comment
period, which was extended, why won't we need a third
extension after we get those comments incorporated in?
MR. MULHERE: Well, let me -- I think that's a good question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's no logic.
MR. MULHERE: I don't know that I have an answer for you. I
think if they respond to what issues we've raised, then perhaps
we would not have any further comments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But how do you know they're not
going to do that this time?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you know you're going to
need another comment period right now? Maybe they are going
to respond to the comments you've already made.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We don't know. But I, for one,
would rather have the option to comment and not have to than
have no option at all.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand your concern,
where does it end, but considering the time that has gone into
this, the effort and some of the confusion, this is like a giant
version of the sign ordinance. There were a number of different
things floating around and a lot of confusion about it. So we said
okay, we'll have a couple extra weeks on this thing and we'll
have another hearing, a third hearing.
Theoretically we could continue that to a fourth or a fifth,
but what we did was whittle it down to a reasonable amount of
time where everyone could understand what was included in it.
There are still clearly some questions in the community as
to what's in this draft and where they're headed. I don't think it's
asking for too much to say we'd like to comment on the next
version of this as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I disagree. I think that the
decision-making time is here, and we're about to move on to the
Page 80
January 11, 2000
next phase. You know, this is the -- we're about to move to the
feasibility study and we're going to want to comment on that. So
that's just my opinion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's -- I wanted to raise that
question. What about in the feasibility study, will they then
address economic impact? Or when is that addressed? Because
they certainly have not -- nothing's been said about it at this
point in time, but when will it be said?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You want to include that as part
of the inquiry in the letter?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's important, because I
think there -- I think it's definitely a piece of what we're doing.
MR. MULHERE: I would say that to some degree they did
consider economic impacts during the ADG process. Now,
whether or not you feel that they sufficiently addressed those
impacts is another issue.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well --
MR. MULHERE: But there is a section --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- I would submit that they did not,
okay?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would agree if I could, Bob. I'd
agree because there was literally no one on that ADG with any
economic expertise. So to gather a bunch of business folks and
environmental folks and then have them guess at what might be
the economic impact isn't an economic study. That's not a
viable economic study.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Shall we --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so either. And I
believe that there is being some work done. And I'd like to see
the outcome of that before -- I think it's going to be astounding.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Shall we request that they provide
a formal economic impact study?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are you going to include that as
part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As part of my motion, I'll include
that.
Page 81
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere, you'll amend the
letter if the motion passes?
Commissioner Carter, you'll --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll support that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- second that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we need to have that. And
that's part of the reason why we need the additional comment
period.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, to get to perhaps
Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, if you look at specific
qualities we're asking for, which is for our comments to be
incorporated into whatever the next draft is, I think it's important
to note that there is significant comment, both technical,
philosophical, environmental, economic, coming from a number
of other sources to this process. There is going to have to be on
the part of the Corps a significant redraft for them to follow their
own procedures for them to incorporate the comment that
they're receiving, which is substantive.
So there will be another draft coming around, anyway. So
we're not asking them to do anything that's inconsistent with
their own process, which is to incorporate our comments.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have public speakers on
this, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: We have one. That would be Mr. Ty Agoston.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Agoston. Good morning.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning. Happy New Year, everybody.
Congratulations, Ms. Mac'Kie, on your marriage. And
congratulations to you as getting elected as chair and vice chair.
While I'm relatively a newcomer to Florida, I have read quite
some measure of material regarding to the history of the Golden
Gate Estates, and the fact of the matter that the entire Estates
was planned with the assistance of the Army Corps, with
widespread political support.
And at this stage of time, we, and I include myself,
unfortunately, have financially raped some 19,000 folks in
Southern Golden Gate Estates.
Page 82
January 11, 2000
Now we are in the process of preparing to make remarks to
the same agency who has created this problem. Had they 20
years ago put up the red flags that this may cause whatever
environmental catastrophe they had predicted -- and they forever
predict some damn thing -- other people would have looked at it
as well, and possibly we could have saved some of those stupid
Cubans, according to Ms. Brett a few years back in this chamber,
who bought those lots in Southern Golden Gate Estates, as well
as the Northern Golden Gate Estates.
If any of you don't believe that there is a drastic change,
according to Mr. Starling's article Sunday, in response to a
number of you wrote on the subject, you have nothing to worry
about. You will have the Army Corps making simply a better
judgment.
Do you really -- well, first of all, the gentleman is not a
Collier County resident. Second, he invited the Army Corps. So
as far as I was concerned, you know, the Naples Daily News is
being facetious, being -- inviting someone to make a comment
who had a built-in agenda to go to a given arrival.
My biggest objection to this issue is that this is focused on
Northern Golden Gate Estates. If any of you have attended their
presentation, Zone I of Golden Gate Estates does not entail
major changes in the permitting process. However, Zone 2
would require each individual property owners -- and I want to
call your attention, we're talking about people owning two and a
half acres being in the process of building their family home --
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to the Army Corps
in order to satisfy their requirements which change with
whatever wind happens to blow, and certainly far from scientific.
I happen to know -- I have plenty of time -- the elevation of
Northern Golden Gate Estates is higher than the coastal Naples.
We flood less often. And that's without the benefit of storm
sewers. Coastal Naples have the water drained away from them.
We don't.
Still, FEMA has declared Northern Golden Gate Estates a
flooding zone which, just simply, adds additional impediments to
these young families who are trying to build a home out there.
Page 83
January 11, 2000
And let's face it, it has to be young families who are building out
there. People with money will build on the coast. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
We've got a motion and a second. Is there further
discussion?
I'm just going to say one thing and that is this weekend, or
actually Friday, Commissioner Mac'Kie accused the remainder of
the board of being ignorant on environmental issues -- and that's
an exact quote -- that we didn't understand the issues.
Today we are asking to be able to review the second draft,
to check for accuracy, and to educate ourselves so that we fully
understand the issues and have an opportunity to comment on
that. I think to not do that would rightfully be ignorant, but to not
understand the issues, not review it and not comment on it is
irresponsible at best. So I'm going to support the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to comment on
that. And that is that first of all, for the rest of the board's
information, I did use the word ignorant, but I will tell you that it
was used in this context: That your elected representatives in
Collier County are not intentionally in any way destructive of the
environment; that they may not be informed as well as they
should be or as well as I would hope they would be about some
of the impacts of their decisions. And to the extent that is
ignorant, then I meant it that way and not in the pejorative.
I will tell you, too, though, Tim, just to support what I said, if
you knew more about the impacts of this study, you would
already be prepared to support it and not need the additional
time. So that's the basis for my vote against the additional time
is that I'm already informed enough to know where these go.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I apologize for being ignorant of
what the second draft will look like. But since it hasn't been
printed yet, apparently you are clairvoyant. We'll --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll let that go.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- go ahead and call the motion.
All those in favor, please state aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
Page 84
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 4-1 is the vote.
MR. McNEES'. One point of clarification. You mentioned
further discussion of perhaps adding a statement regarding an
economic impact. Is that incorporated in your motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was part of the motion.
MR. McNEES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That was part of the motion.
Item #8A6
WILSONMILLER, INC. SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE IMMOKALEE
AREA APPROVED. STAFF DIRECTED TO NEGOTIATE
ADDITIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES WITH DOVER, KOHL AND
PARTNERS TO FULFILL THE FINAL ORDER REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE COLLIER COUNTY RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL
ASSESSMENT
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 8(A)(6), endorse the
Wilson-Miller scope of work for the Immokalee area.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask
Nancy Linnan, your outside legal counsel, to come up and begin
the discussion with respect to this item.
And additionally, Mr. Alan Reynolds is in attendance, too, to
talk a little bit about the scope. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MS. LINNAN: Good morning.
THE COURT REPORTER: Please spell your name for the
record.
MS. LINNAN: L-I-N-N-A-N.
Again, for the record, I'm Nancy Linnan, Collier County
outside growth management counsel.
I'm here to discuss this item, because as is almost
Page 85
January 11', 2000
everything connected with the county's Growth Management
Plan right now, there are lots of too many opportunities to spend
too many dollars on lawyers, and I want to make sure the record
is very clear about what you're being asked to do and what you
are not going to be doing.
The item before you really has three aspects, one of which
is not really as clear as I would like it to be. The first is you're
being asked to endorse the Wilson-Miller scope of work as part of
the rural lands assessment.
Secondly, you need to understand and put on the record, and
that's why I'm here, the context of that endorsement of the
scope of work.
And third, your staff is asking you to give them some
direction and guidance in negotiating with another consultant to
provide some additional services with regard to the big rural
lands assessment.
And I'm happy to say that last evening at the Rural Lands
Oversight Committee, what you have before you today, with two
minor additions to the Wilson-Miller scope of work, were
unanimously endorsed by the Oversight Committee. And that
was important, because at a prior meeting there were some
questions about that. But it was a unanimous vote.
First of all, what you're being asked to do, you're being
asked to endorse the Wilson-Miller scope, which you have in
front of you. There are two minor changes that I think Bob
Mulhere is handing out to you now. But for purposes of members
of the public who are here, there is a minor amendment to -- in
the overview section, 1.1, to say that the study will fulfill the
applicable requirements described in the final order.
And then there is an additional section which makes clear--
clarifies under goals and process, 2. -- as new 2.6, and wouldn't
state all ensuing plan amendments are to coordinate with the
biological and hydrological needs of the conservation lands such
as interconnective wetlands systems and listed species habitat.
We needed to add that for the record.
First question you would no doubt ask is why are we being
asked to endorse this? It's private enterprise. Why does the
Page 86
January 11, 2000
County Commission have to do this? This is not an insignificant
undertaking on the part of the East Collier Property Owners
Association. And even at Mr. Reynold's very nominal fees, it's
not an inexpensive undertaking, and the property owners rightly
want to ensure themselves that they are headed in the right
direction and have a nod from both the oversight committee and
this board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First time I've ever heard nominal
fees and Wilson-Miller in the same sentence.
MS. LINNAN: Secondly, to the committee and folks like me,
the outside counsel, it's very helpful to know in advance exactly
what they're going to be doing so we can plan the bigger scope
of work. Which raises the question of what is the scope of work.
It is not the be-all and end-all comprehensive scope of work that
the committee is going to be undertaking, nor this board in its
role in doing the assessment. It is a portion of that.
The actual scope of work is the context issue that I wanted
to talk about. And I do not know, I can't remember if you have in
your backup, this chart. It's on the visualizer. This is the scope
of work. It is a process.
Your staff has worked on this, had comments from several
folks. It is a four-step process, it's a three-year process, which
frankly we're going to have to shorten somewhat, because we're
already six months into the process.
The first phase will be the data gathering. And there are
notes underneath as to who will do what in that process.
The second phase will be testing the impact of the
methodology on the current growth management plan, taking a
look at it.
Third phase is going to be probably one of the most
important phases, and that is developing alternative approaches.
Not necessarily when you hear that term think of development
scenarios. It may be providing you a bunch of growth
management tools, transfers of development rights, things like
that, and how those tools could be used, evaluating the impacts
of those alternatives, and then coming up hopefully at the
committee level as the forum for the public comment into this
Page 87
January 11, 2000
with a conceptual plan. Coming back before this body with that
conceptual plan saying folks, are we on the right track, do you
want to add anything from this, subtract anything, as the elected
representatives of the county, and then everybody going forth
and drafting amendments to implement that.
It is skeletal at this time because we don't have the data at
the front end and we cannot presuppose what the answers will
be at this point. But this is the context, the big picture, the
overall scope of work. The Wilson-Miller study is only a portion
of that, a significant portion, and we appreciate the assistance in
paying for consultants.
The third portion or aspect of what you're being asked to do
is, Wilson-Miller only represents the property owners. There are
a few items, maybe more, that will require independent review by
your staff. In some cases your staff may not be able to do all
that, for time purposes, expertise, whatever. And we have talked
about before possibly going outside and maybe having an
additional consultant on hand just in case.
Well, it turned out in this process that you had another RFP
out there. And so all the staff is asking is the ability to work with
this other consultant under the RFP and perhaps add to their --
not to the RFP, but to their scope of services and maybe use
them for some of the outside work.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
MS. LINNAN: Those are the three items.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Ms. Linnan, is there anything else
that you feel you need to get on the record? MS. LINNAN: No.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. We did have a meeting last
night over in Immokalee, and the plan, the process, was
approved by the committee, with a recommendation that any
additional work would be done through Dover-Cole (phonetic),
which we just appropriated money for. But it may be in and
above the amount of money for this particular study.
Having said all that, we did have a unanimous approval last
night. I would like to move approval of this item.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
Page 88
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Do we
have public speakers?
MR. McNEES: You do, you have two. Nancy Payton will be
followed by Al Reynolds. I think Mr. Reynolds --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: While Ms. Payton is coming to the
microphone, I would like to say that there was some confusion
among some of our committee members when they were talking
about the scope of work in regard to Wilson-Miller. They were
misinterpreting that to think that that was the scope of the
project. In other words, the work that was being done, that that
was it. Where in effect it's what is being shown on our screen
here is the, quote, scope of the work.
What Wilson-Miller was presenting was actually a portion of
what they're going to be doing for their particular part of the
study. If we need anymore, then we go to the consultant.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Their part is one component.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One component.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Payton, good morning, or
almost afternoon.
MS. PAYTON: Good day. My name is Nancy Payton, and I'm
representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. And my comments
are strictly on the scope of work that's before you today from
Wilson-Miller.
First of all, this scope of work, we're not the client here. The
public, the county, is not the client. The client is the large
property owners. Therefore, this planning effort is not done in
the Sunshine, the documents and source materials gathered are
not public record, and the meetings with agency representatives
are not in the Sunshine, unless you can assure me today that I
can attend every one of those meetings and I have access to all
the documents, the source materials that are generated out of
this report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
to duplicate the work.
MS. PAYTON: Right, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
misunderstand that point?
If not, then we're going to have
Could you talk about that? Do I
Page 89
January 11, 2000
MS. PAYTON: Could I finish my statement first?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sorry.
MS. PAYTON: Thank you.
This scope does not represent the collaborative
community-based planning effort called for in the final order.
This represents a cabal of landowners, land barons, plotting the
future of Collier County behind closed doors. The part of Collier
County, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, has said
is the last best wild place in all of Florida.
Not too late to change your mind. Not too late to do the
right thing. You found $250,000 to do a character study of Collier
County, to deal with signs and buildings and such, to deal with
the style of the county. You can find that amount of money and
more to deal with the soul of the county; that is, its land, water,
air and wildlife. That is, to do this study yourself.
We have asked before and we'll ask again that there be an
independent facilitator that coordinates this whole project, and
that there be a scope of work for the entire area and every bit of
work is done under the county's auspices in the Sunshine and
available to the public. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Reynolds?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could Ms. Linnan answer that
question?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like legal counsel to reply
to that, if she might.
MS. LINNAN: I'm responding only to the comments about
the Sunshine. I mean, what you will come out -- what will come
out of the process is an end product that will be available for
members of the public to comment on at public hearings. Those
documents will be available to the public to see.
Now, to say that any time someone wants to consult with a
member of the Technical Advisory Committee, the state and
regional agencies, it needs to be a meeting advertised would
probably turn this, a three-year process, two and a half year
process into a 10-year process.
In the same sense that if, for example, one of the
Page 90
January 11, 2000
environmental entities would feel that they can call the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, anybody can do that and ask
a question. But the end result will be presented and fully open to
the public.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And any pertinent information
on which that result is based.
MS. LINNAN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Now that's an important
distinction, and I've got to understand this, so I'd ask you not to
leave.
That we are obliged to have this public participation
process, and I'm extremely grateful that private property owners
are willing to fund a portion of it. Nevertheless, that doesn't
circumvent the need for it to be the full public process. How will
the process that we are approving the scope of today differ from
the process if the county were footing the bill?
MS. LINNAN: This is -- once again, this is the process. This
is the scope.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How would this portion of the
process differ from -- if the county were footing the bill?
MS. LINNAN: It is a piece of the process that throughout --
as you can see under each of the phases, Wilson-Miller's role is
defined in that. Any time this board or the Oversight Committee
determines that they need additional information, or the staff
determines that additional information is required to provide a
full picture to the committee or board, the staff can either come
up with that, or after they price out the item, come back to you
and say we would like to go to Dover-Cole, it will cost this much,
is this okay, and you will then supplement that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm sorry to be so pushy, but
I really want to know, how will the process with private property
owners funding the -- this scope differ from if the county
taxpayer were funding this scope?
MS. LINNAN: In the end the county taxpayer is funding the
overall scope, the overall process, the overall very public and
collaborative process. The Wilson-Miller scope is a piece of that
process, and they are just telling us in advance what they are
Page 91
January 11, 2000
going to be doing so we will know -- give us a little warning in
advance where we need to go to supplement that, and to also to
make sure from their standpoint, are they wasting their money,
are they heading in the right direction, to assist the county in the
overall process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I really -- I apologize for
asking more questions than you want me to, but I really want to
understand this. That the county will -- I understand that the
county will have a role of supplementing the Wilson-Miller scope
if we find that there are questions to be investigated that are not
a part of the Wilson-Miller scope. That part makes perfect sense
to me.
The piece that I don't understand is while the Wils -- as to
the questions that are investigated as a part of the Wilson-Miller
scope, what is the public's -- by blessing this scope today, am I
voting that I know Wilson-Miller's going to ask all the right
questions, as to that subset of--
MS. LINNAN: You are not limiting yourself to those
questions. You can add questions at any time, and the
committee has --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's to question one.
MS. LINNAN: -- indicated their full intent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's assume Wilson-Miller is
answering question no. one: We agree we are putting, whatever
that is, hypothetical question no. one to Wilson-Miller.
How do I know that the source of information that the data
that they're using that I agree that they have asked all of the
right questions as they come back to me with an answer to
question no. 17
MS. LINNAN: That's part of the public process. That
information will then become available to the public. The issue
of putting the scope up there for -- to be a target issue, if you
will, was really to let people know what questions Wilson-Miller
intended to ask, and the committee and this board can add to
that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think one of the comments in
Page 92
January 11, 2000
regard to, you know, making sure the proper questions are
asked, that's why we established a Technical Advisory
Committee, so some of these questions, when Wilson-Miller is
doing their study and if there's any question about whether
they're -- I don't know, I'm looking at it is if they say well, how did
you arrive at something or another. Whatever member of that
Technical Advisory Committee -- now, let me have you
understand what that Technical Advisory Committee is. This
would be a lot of the different agencies that might be concerned
about what they're studying, and so if there's some information
that comes forward, at least this can be bounced off of them.
And so they're going to continually know whether they're on
the right track or not, Pam. Whether it's Wildlife or whether it's --
whatever group it might be, Audubon, you name it. There might --
will be some contact. So at least they know as they're moving
through the process, you are not going to get up to the end and
say oh, gosh, we went down the wrong track. There will be this
ability to check this as we go along.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the checker is going to be
basically the members of the Technical Advisory Committee who
are basically the agencies.
MS. LINNAN: Well, the checker will be a number of folks.
You have members of the public also bringing their own
information to the front where you will have to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm talking about with regard to
the matters that are within the scope of the Wilson-Miller study.
MS. LINNAN: Right. As to methodology, the members of the
Technical Advisory Committee will be asked to comment on that.
I want to make clear that this is not another voting body.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I under--
MS. LINNAN: These are individuals that have been selected
by the agencies as being the point person within each of those.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If I can make a way
oversimplified analogy, when you were in 8th grade algebra class
and you had a test, you not only had to put down the answer but
you had to have your worksheet for how you got there.
Page 93
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Same thing here. There will be
an end product that Wilson-Miller brings as their component. But
all of that worksheet that they have to get to that point is going
to have to be part of the record as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I will have access. I, general
public, will have access to all of the source material that they
use?
MS. LINNAN: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that -- I'm surprised by
that, because that's going to include the permits, for example,
that the different private entities hold, I'm going to -- MS. LINNAN: They're already public.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Yeah, good point. So
there's not anything I won't -- no source material that general
public won't have access to eventually? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from Wilson-Miller,
shall we?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, under the scope of
Wilson-Miller, 3.1.1 tells you the whole list of potential areas that
they're going to, which is public access. So no one should ever
have any question about where they're getting their data.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alan Reynolds with
Wilson-Miller.
If we can use the discussion that has led to this scope of
services as an instructional as to how much public input there
will be, we have had our scope of services on your Web site. It
was published back in, I believe, late September, early October.
There have been four meetings of your oversight committee. At
each meeting there has been a discussion of the scope of
services. There have been two sets of changes to it, most
recently last night. I think that's instructional as to how much
input will be welcomed to this process.
We've spent a tremendous amount of time making sure that
the scope of services that we're going to perform comports with
what the final order requires and is consistent with all of the
Page 94
January 11, 2000
input that we've gotten. And certainly the assurances about the
public nature of this is -- has been incorporated into our scope of
services and is part of the final order. So I don't think there's any
question that this is going to be a very open and public process.
We're ready to go to work. We're now seven months into the
three-year time period and we have yet to start doing any of the
substantive work. We're anxious to begin that process.
I think last night at the committee we hammered out the
final minor changes. We appreciate your support of us moving
ahead.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One other question for staff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has DCA staff or anybody at the
state level seen the scope, blessed the scope, likes the scope,
hates the scope, has a comment on the scope?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Scope of the project or theirs?
MS. MATTHEWS: This scope.
MS. LINNAN: They have seen both. And they asked that it
be placed in context, and that's why we provided the chart, so
that people could see what that context would be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to be sure we were
dotting that "1' in particular.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Commissioner Berry made the motion, Commissioner Norris
made the second. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
Anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Let's try to work our way through 7, 8, 9, and 10, and then
we'll take a lunch break. I think each of those will be fairly
short.
Item #8A7
Page 95
January 11, 2000
WORK PLAN AND BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
CONSIDER INCLUDING IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA AS ONE OF
THE COMPONENT AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - APPROVED WITH CONFLICT OF
WAIVER
Item 8(A)(7), recommendation to approve the work plan and
budget for implementing Bayshore/Gateway Triangle.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. There's a motion and
a second. Wide-eyed look from Ms. Preston.
Anything you want to add before we approve it?
MS. PRESTON: I'd just like to make one comment. That
would be that David Cardwell, who will be our legal consultant,
to help us establish the CRA, his firm, Holland and Knight is
representing Solomon-Smith Barney, who has a lawsuit against
Dwight Brock versus Merrill Lynch.
David Cardwell has -- I mean, David Weigel has spoken to
both Mr. Brock and to Mr. Cardwell. There doesn't seem to be
any conflict. But just to be on the safe side, we'd like to have
authorization to enter into a conflict waiver between those two
parties. And Mr. Weigel can address anything specific that you
might --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a big enough law firm that
that's not ever going to be noticed by anybody who's going to
practically touch this matter. I certainly wouldn't have any
problem with this. And I think it's really innovative and smart of
you guys to get the Immokalee issue in here, too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to amend the
motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know if Ms. Mac'Kie is
through. If she is, I'll amend the motion to incorporate that
waiver.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did you make the second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I will second it, if there's not one.
Page 96
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Who made the second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think I did.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, you accept
the amendment to the motion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a speaker?
MR. McNEES: We have one, Barbara Cacchione. Given your
motion, I suspect she's not here to try to talk you out of it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: She's waiving.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: She's waiving.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: W-A-V-I-N-G and W-A-I-V-I-N-G.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Notice the big smile on her face
these days?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
We'll call the question. All
Thanks. Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8A8
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES TO FUND
A CONSULTANT STUDY CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S REVISED FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAPS - APPROVED
Item 8(A)(8), interlocal agreement with the City of Naples to
fund a consultant study.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, this is something
we've talked about in the past several times, so I make the
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Any public speakers?
Any objection?
Seeing none, motion carries unanimously.
Page 97
January 11, 2000
Item #8A9
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.725, POWER ENTERPRISES
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY 72ND
AVENUE AND ON THE SOUTH BY 70 TM AVENUE - APPROVED
WITH STIPULATIONS
Item 8(A)(9), which was 16(A)(8), excavation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question on that, Bob.
Do we do any environmental impact studies on any of these
evacua -- is there any required? Otherwise, I keep hearing that
there's a problem with the gopher turtle about -- you know, do we
get into this --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- or do we ignore that on those
sites or--
MR. MULHERE: No, no, no. We do an evaluat -- first of all,
we require the applicant to provide us with some information, but
we do a site visit on every single one. If there's any conflict
between what the information the applicant has submitted and
the site visit, then of course we have issues. If there's any
listed, threatened or endangered species or other environmental
concerns, such an excavation permit would have to go to the
EAC. Failing any of those circumstances, then it comes directly
to you.
I understand on this application that there was some
discussion, since it was pulled off the consent agenda --
Commissioner Berry, you might be aware of this -- that the
applicant has agreed to a maximum time frame of one year for
the excavation as an additional condition.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. That's what I had under --
after the fact, at the time we took the break, I had the
opportunity to speak with them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: My concern was over traffic,
Page 98
January 11, 2000
actually. Mine was different. My concern was different than
Jim's, but mine was a concern over traffic.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, the only thing --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Having that additional
restriction, are you okay?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The other thing that I read in
there was something about blasting. I mean, can they or can't
they, or do they have to come back and get a special permit to
do blasting?
MR. MULHERE: There is a permit required for blasting. And
they are permitted to blast. However, there are some conditions
contained in the Land Development Code. I'm not extremely well
versed on those. Tom Kuck would be better versed.
However, I will tell you that it's -- there are very specific
conditions. They have to go out and notify all of the property
owners. They have to videotape the property. They have to
record it and retain that videotape. They have to get a bond. So
there's quite a plethora of restrictions on blasting. Of course,
they don't do it unless they have to because it's costly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nope.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll move approval.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion from Commissioner
Berry, second from Commissioner Norris.
All those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8A10
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR OPENING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR
THE NAPLES AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE/COLLIER COUNTY
Page 99
January 11, 2000
FILM OFFICE TO PAY THE REMAINING INVOICES FOR FY99 -
APPROVED
Item 8(A)(10) was Item 16(A)(7), and that's the budget
amendment for the purpose of opening a purchase order for
Naples Area Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Mihalic, these -- the monies that are being carried over
are for things that have already been invoiced but not paid; is
that correct? We are not opening this up for future invoices?
MR. MIHALIC: No, it's for bills that were accrued in August
and September of last fiscal year that are now requested to be
paid. The purchase order was closed off and will now be
reopened to pay those expenditures.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I'll move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When we come back after
lunch, we'll start out with the Collier County Fair and Exposition.
Let's take an hour. We'll see you at 1:17. (Lunch recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, we're back. Welcome to the
afternoon session of the Board of County Commissioners for
January 11th, 19 -- no, no, 2000.
Item #8Cl
RES. 2000-17 - ASSIST THE COLLIER COUNTY FAIR AND
EXPOSITION, INC. WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE NORTH AND
SOUTH WINGS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PAVILION BY
GUARANTYING A TAX-EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN -
ADOPTED
Public services. Item 8(C)(1). Assist the Collier County Fair
Page 100
January 11, 2000
and Exposition, Inc., with the completion of the north and south
wings of the ag. pavilion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, you want to talk us
out of this?
MR. OLLIFF: Not a chance, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any public speakers on this
item?
MR. McNEES: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection?
Seeing none, motion carries 4-0.
Item #8D1
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECRUITMENT - STAFF TO RETURN
AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH LIST OF OUTSIDE SCREENING
AGENCIES TO EVALUATE CANDIDATES
Item 8(D)(1), the county administrator recruitment.
Ms. Edwards, how are you?
MS. EDWARDS: Just fine. Good afternoon. For the record,
my name's Jennifer Edwards, human resources director. And I'm
back today as a result of a meeting in December -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Welcome back.
MS. EDWARDS: -- where you agreed to send us some
information from which we developed a position profile for the
And today we're to talk about
county administrator position.
how you want to proceed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
I see a result of everyone's -- MS. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- input? This particular
two sheets are the composite?
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, sir, the candidate profile is a
composite.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
A question. Is the composite that
-- these
Did everybody get copies of
Page 101
January t 1, 2000
everybody else? Because I know I copied mine to all the board
members and I --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Likewise.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I have copies of everybody's.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I did not, but I spoke to human
resources and I did it before the end of the year. I called down to
their office on the Thursday prior to December 31 --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and gave my comments to them,
which I believe is what we all agreed to do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just by way of starting a
discussion or trying to set us in a direction, I think as we look at
the profile, it's listed in our executive summary. I don't -- I doubt
any of us has a big argument with the way that's worded. I think
it goes through all of the priorities and all the things we're
looking for in great detail, and is very well put together. And I
appreciate you trying to cobble together five of our things all in
one, but I think you've done a great job with it.
The one point that I had written in my memo to each of you
that I feel very strongly about is I think we should look in-house
first. I understand we want to have the best and brightest, but I
think we've got some home-grown talent right here that probably
qualifies as that. We've got four or five people in-house that I
think could do the job, and I would like to see us open it up for
in-house candidates first, see if they're interested.
I mean, we may get two weeks out and nobody's applied. I
doubt that, and I hope not, but see who's applied, and in that
two-week span, maybe each one of us speak with them
individually, though we're all familiar with each one of them.
Surely, if they work for us.
And then perhaps two weeks from now do an interview in
the public forum and speak with them and then decide do we
think one of those candidates is appropriate. If not, if we decide
we don't have anyone in-house, then I have no objection to
Commissioner Carter's suggestion of not only doing a nationwide
search but having someone assist us in that.
I just hope that we would give our own people the first
Page 102
January 11, 2000
shake at that. And I hope that for a couple of reasons. One, I
think it's good for employee morale and for the understanding,
the best businesses in America usually promote from within.
That we can't pay because we're the public sector, we often
don't pay as much as the Wilson-Millers or those types, and so
we lose some of our best people.
If they also don't think there's an appropriate opportunity for
advancement, that's one less thing we have to go. So while they
may be able to .make an extra dollar going somewhere else, if we
have opportunities for advancement, I think there's a tremendous
advantage.
And perhaps most importantly to the county, I don't think
you can place too much value on institutional knowledge. When
we have a community as dynamic and growing and changing as
ours, somebody who knows what happened here a year ago or
five years ago or 15 years ago is tremendously valuable. You
look at how much change the commission has undergone since
'92, all fresh faces, theoretically you could have three new faces
later this year, and so we're constantly a changing dynamic. I
think it's important that on the administrative level that we have
some continuity, and I would love to see an in-house person do
that.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-- My -- I absolutely agree with you,
and I just would ask, because I've asked this question of Ms.
Edwards already, so I know what the answer is, the normal
process is that when a new position becomes available at the
county, it's advertised in-house first. And so this would not be
deviating from our normal policy, if I understand it correctly.
MS. EDWARDS: We advertise either internally or externally.
We may decide that we want to advertise a position just
internally. But if we decide we want to advertise externally, then
both internals and externals can apply. So it is not uncommon to
advertise just internally.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. That's all. I agree with
what you said.
Page 103
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that sounds like three.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I just have a couple of
questions, and I will come back to my memo, is that I certainly
am not against having an in-house person promoted to this
position. Don't ever misconstrue that. I believe we need to do a
broad-based search, and we need to have an independent source
take the criteria, interview the candidates, whether in-house or
out of house, against that grid and then come back to us and say
here, whatever surfaces from that. If I was an in-house person, I
don't think that I would object to that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- because it would say I have
been compared not only internally, but I have been compared
with whatever's out there in the marketplace and I am a very
strong candidate for this position.
So I'd really like to have an independent source do the
evaluation screening up front to bring us the final list of
candidates, because it puts it into neutral ground. It puts it with
people whose profession is to look at a position, to look at
candidates, and make recommendations to an organization.
And I'm sure Ms. Edwards probably knows firms that do this,
that specifically deal with filling county and city administrative --
key administrative posts.
So I would like to see us do that. If there's not sentiment on
this board to do it, I can understand that. But publicly and
professionally and personally, that's where I am.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I guess I do need to respond
nOW,
I think we have a multi-step decision level process here.
And the first decision is to decide are we going to try to get an
internal candidate, or are we going to try to get a combination of
applicants that would be internal and external, or are we just
going to go simply external?
And my opinion agrees with Commissioner Constantine, I
think we should start primarily with the internal candidate and
look at those and see if we want to go forward from that point,
Page 104
January 11, 2000
and then we can go to another level if we decide we don't want
any of the internal candidates. But to me, the historical
knowledge and the institutional knowledge of an internal
candidate is much more valuable than anything we're going to
find outside at this point, assuming that we have applicants who
are qualified to do the management ]ob in the first place.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two points. One is institutional
knowledge is important to me, but frankly, what's even more
important to me, the reason I favor in-house, is proven track
record of producing. And we have producers. We have people on
our staff who we know for sure how they work and that they
accomplish the goals. And that's a lot better to me than any
theories or anything else.
I wonder, though, I wanted to ask Commissioner Carter,
when he was talking about an independent screening, is that
something that could be done of in-house candidates?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, absolutely. I think anyone
coming and applying for the position should go through that
screen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE= But it --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What they ought to do is find a
neutral person to do the evaluation, a short list, if you please,
and bring it to us. As Commissioner Norris said, there's three
options here. I prefer the middle option where I look at both and
then see what comes through the screen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we wanted to do in-house
applications first, there are firms, though, that would evaluate
their resumes --
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
and interview them?
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
I think so.
-- and make recommendations
I think there certainly should be.
I'm looking for that neutral input objectively doing that process
for us, because I think that will help us ultimately if -- let's say,
we had three in-house applicants, I think it still gives us another
perspective on how somebody who doesn't even know these
Page 105
January 11, 2000
people looks at them through a professional screen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that idea.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, from this Commissioner's
point of view, number one, I want the very best applicants that
we can get. And though I might prefer to start at in-house, I'm
not so sure that it keeps us as clean a process. And I know Mr.
Carter has talked about process in the past, but I think it keeps it
cleaner. If you're going to advertise for this job, then why not
advertise for the job, period?
And obviously I would think that anyone that is interested,
whether they're in-house or out of the house, you know, if -- it
could be someone in our community who might apply for the job.
I don't know. But let's start with that. And I tend to agree that
it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a separate entity that would
probably just accept all the applications and just make the initial
screening, and then present us -- and it could be both people out
of our house or in our house.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's break it into two parts and
see if we have general agreement. It sounded at one point like
we had general agreement that looking at the in-house
candidates first was the best idea. I just wanted to make sure
we actually have a majority.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about that. If
we opened it -- is there something between a national search
where we go out, hire a search firm, search -- like we did when
we hired Mr. Fernandez. That was a national search; do I have
that right?
MS. EDWARDS: That's correct. But we did that for you
internally at that time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You did that internally.
If we wanted to just open this for applications and you
would advertise it, I guess, in appropriate journals or whatever,
how much more cumbersome does it make the process and how
much time does it add to the process?
MS. EDWARDS: Well, it is more cumbersome, because
Page t 06
January 11, 2000
you're doing, what I'm assuming you're saying, is a national
executive search, and that's advertising -- working within the
advertising time frames of the professional journals, which may
be a month, two months lead times. And it takes a considerable
amount of time.
I had one human resource analyst working on it two and a
half years ago, and he spent a significant amount of time. I can't
quantify the hours.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let me ask another question
here, Ms. Edwards: Isn't there a way to retain a firm, though?
You don't have to do the advertising. Let's say that you retain a
firm that specializes in this. They know where to go to find good
people. These people are not looking for a job. These people,
wherever they are, they'd go and say would you be interested?
And they say, I might be. And they submit a resume to that firm.
And I have to ask legal counsel another question. Isn't that
person then protected going through that screen until such a
time as that outside firm would present those candidates to us;
therefore, that person doesn't jeopardize the position where they
currently are because we are a Sunshine state?
MR. WEIGEL: No, we're a Sunshine state and the Sunshine
arms reach out through our assistants, intermediaries that way.
Case law -- case laws render it that way.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So it doesn't make any difference
whether it's advertised or whether it's a search firm that's doing
it?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If somebody submits a resume,
it's public record.
MR. WEIGEL: Having a surrogate do what you would
otherwise do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And Commissioner Mac'Kie, I
think it's not only how much time elapses and how much money
we spend, but it's at what price to our own employee morale. If
we have folks who have worked with us for 10 or 15 years and
they're not the first people we're looking at, if I was that
employee I would start wondering how valuable I was
Page 107
January 11, 2000
considered. I just think that should be our first stop.
And if we find at the end of looking at that that none of
those folks fit our qualifications, or we're not sure, maybe they
do but we're not sure, then we go to search. But I just think it is
absolutely essential that we look at them first.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got to say, based on my five
years serving on this board, I'm confident that we have enough
talent in-house that we should seek applicants in-house first. If I
had any question about that, then I would agree that we ought to
advertise broadly. But I think that we clearly have more than --
we're going to have a tough enough choice with the in-house
applicants, frankly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's three.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm getting the feeling -- see,
I don't see any reason to put a big hurry, okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it money?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we're under control --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- I think we're moving along. I
think that one thing that I want to do is to do this process right.
And I don't want to have to turn around and undo this. So
whatever is the best approach to it, I am open to that kind of
approach, because I want to do it right the first time and not
have to come back and try and fix the problem. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which brings me back to what I
think is Commissioner Constantine's, I hope,* second point is the
idea of this independent screen. I would be very interested in
having a professional firm evaluate the in-house applicants and
give us their analysis about their qualifications versus what this
professional screener would see as the market of available
individuals.
I mean, I would love to have a separate independent
professional evaluation of the in-house applicants, assuming we
broke it down that way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There can be no harm in having
a fresh set of eyes look at -- I would hope, obviously we wouldn't
Page 108
January 11, 2000
rubber stamp whatever they did. But I think each of us has
worked with anybody here at the county who may apply and
having someone with a fresh perspective take a look, it can only
be helpful.
It sounds like we have a majority who are okay with the
in-house. How do we feel on that screening procedure that
Commissioner Carter had suggested?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I'm going to make my
agreement on the in-house contingent on having the screening. I
think the independent evaluator -- and are there such firms,
Jennifer?
MS. EDWARDS: We -- I would want to talk to some of the
firms, and we would -- my recommendation is that we come back
then at the next board meeting with a recommendation for you
for that external objective screener.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That makes sense.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have an objection to that.
That certainly is not going to go hurt anything. As long as we're
not talking about an extended time period. I don't want to --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I don't think it --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- spend six months looking at
in-house candidates resumes. I don't want to get into something
like that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And they could apply, I think, in
the interim period. They can submit their resumes. All we're
saying is in the two weeks we have a chance to look at the
screeners and say we would like this person to do it, and I'm
comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They should be able to
accomplish that in a matter of days.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So what we're saying is
we're going to have -- I'm sorry, old habits. Go ahead,
Commissioner Constantine.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, so what we're saying is
we're going to have -- we've agreed to open it up to in-house
candidates only, that those applications are -- that is open
Page 109
January 11, 2000
immediately, and that two weeks from now you'll bring back to
us some options for directions for having some outside expertise
look and speak with each of them, look at their records and
speak with each of them individually.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
I'll make that a motion.
I'll --
Second.
-- second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a pair of seconds.
Any further discussion? We have no public speakers on the item.
All those in favor of the motion, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chair, one thing --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- I would like to add is that when
the screener looks at this, that they would take all of the input
from the commissioners, plus our list of management abilities
that we rank ordered. And I think that is very critical that that
person understand the process that we as a Board of
Commissioners have gone through so that they have that as a
criteria base.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. We want them to
judge the candidate based on the criteria that we have set.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, probably not the first time it's
been suggested I be evaluated by a professional, but perhaps in
the most positive context.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're talking of not a
psychological evaluation, Mike.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know. I didn't make that
part of the motion, Mr. --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The next item, 8(G)(1), formerly
something on the consent at agenda. 3. --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, there's two F's, (1)
and (2).
Page 110
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Airport authority.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Airport authority.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry, there were two
add-on items, weren't there?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Amendments.
Item #8F1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL GRANT OF
$6,344, TRANSFER $1,583.50 FROM AIRPORT AUTHORITY
CAPITAL RESERVES, INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE RUNWAY
LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $3,716.26 AND
INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE AIRFIELD SIGNAGE CONSTRUCTION
BUDGET BY $4,201.25 - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I'll move approval of 8(F)(1).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second
on 8(F)(1). All those -- any discussion on that?
Any public speakers on those?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Neither one?
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8F2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AN ADDITIONAL GRANT
OF $41,000, TRANSFER $41,000 FROM AIRPORT AUTHORITY
CAPITAL RESERVES AND INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE T-HANGER
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $82~000 - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to move for the budget
amendment regarding the Immokalee T hangar construction.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That would be 8(F)(2).
Page 111
January 11, 2000
Moved. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion by Commissioner Berry,
second by Commissioner Norris. Any discussions?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8G1
RES. 2000-13 -AWARD BID NO. 99-2993, EC-135 HELICOPTER, TO
METRO AVIATION, INC. AND AUTHORIZE COMMERCIAL PAPER
LOAN FINANCING - APPROVED
Now the former 16(G) something is 8(G)(1), helicopter. 3.3
million.
Help me here, because the helicopter we purchased was
brand spanking new in like just about seven years ago. I
remember we had it out in the parking lot here one day when I
drove in. And with appropriate engine overhauls and all, that
doesn't seem as though it would be worn out. Is this a matter of
safety with a twin engines? Why are we getting a new
helicopter?
MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Chief Diane Flagg with the emergency services department for
the record.
And as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, the helicopter, if our
service level needs remain the same, that it would continue to
work just fine. However, through the budget process, we came
to you with the proposal to purchase a twin-engine helicopter,
due to the fact of primarily safety.
The manufacturers over the years have developed a
helicopter that if the first engine goes down, the second engine
will continue to operate and will also keep the helicopter in the
air and will allow it to maneuver safely to the ground. Under the
current situation, if the one engine goes, we have no backup.
Page 112
January 11, 2000
Secondarily, this ship will also provide improved rescue
capabilities. It will provide the potential to carry two patients
where our current ship carries one.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, let me put this in the words of
your former chief pilot, in daylight with a single engine, if the
engine goes out or if there is some problem, he has a reasonable
opportunity to put that down and survive. In dark, he has no
opportunity to do that. And with a twin, their survivability goes
up considerably. And that's an important consideration, in
addition to the additional patient capacity that we get with a
twin. We can put more than one patient on board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have no speakers on this
item?
MR. McNEES: You have none.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to point out that my
favorite line of a legal document is a part of this item and it is-'
Words importing the masculine gender include every other
gender.
MR. McNEES: All of them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All other genders besides
masculine. Only lawyers could draft that.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2000-14, APPOINTING GLENN E. WILT TO THE
GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMISSION -
ADOPTED
Page113
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: ***Okay, Item 10(A),
appointment of a member to the Golden Gate Beautification
Advisory Committee. There's one opening and one name, that
would be Glenn Wilt.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
So moved.
I'll move the item.
Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have four motions and a
second. We'll give that one to Commissioner Carter, with the
second being Commissioner Mac'Kie. Anybody opposed to that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2000-15, APPOINTING LISA LOTTES TO THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REGION 24 - ADOPTED
Next item is appointment of members to the Work Force
Development Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One and one.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One and one again.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie makes
the motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris has the
second. And is there any objection? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, that's a 5-0 vote.
Which moves us on to the public hearings.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 2000-01, PETITION PUD-82-26(3) D. WAYNE
ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
Page t 14
January 11, 2000
REPRESENTING REVCO/GE JOINT VENTURE, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS VILLAGE PLACE PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF
AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT HAVING THE EFFECT OF
CLARIFYING THAT THE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK IS
MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF CURB OR SIDEWALK, AND
REDUCING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A PORTION OF THE
REMAINING LOTS IN PHASE 1, GLEN EDEN AND ALL OF PHASE
2, GLEN EDEN, FROM 6 FEET TO FIVE FEET, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH (U.S.
41) AND EAST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE, CONSISTING OF
72.5+ ACRES - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Public comment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excuse me -- oh, that's right.
Public comment. I thought Mr. Agoston had left the room.
Any speakers under public comment? Thank you.
MR. McNEES: You have none.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Now we move on -- thanks,
Commissioner Berry-- 12(B)(1), Petition PUD-82-26. We need to
swear you all in. Anybody who wants to participate in this public
hearing needs to stand and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, commissioners, Fred
Reischl, planning services.
Before I start the presentation, the County Attorney's Office
has asked me to put on the record that the resolution that you
have in front of you -- excuse me, the ordinance that you have in
front of you is essentially correct with the one page of basically
footnotes being added to the development standards table.
However, the signed copy was not available. It's a glitch. The
petitioner and the County Attorney's Office are currently working
that out. What you read in the ordinance is what's being
proposed.
This is a PUD to PUD rezone, essentially a PUD amendment,
which basically clarifies the front setback measured from the
back of the curb of the sidewalk, and it reduces the side setback
Page 115
January 11, 2000
currently six feet -- excuse me, six feet in the existing PUD to
five feet. It maintains the minimum of 10 feet between
structures, which generally in this kind of community has
become the standard.
We did not receive any objections from the public. The
reason it's before you and not on the summary agenda is one
member of the Planning Commission objected to 10 feet between
structures in general, not just for this development. And staff
recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, my question is the same as
-- I think it was Mr. Abernathy raised this question, that we do in
our Land Development Codes have established PUD setbacks but
we have established the setbacks and now we're amending or
changing? I'm not sure I understand the rationale of this.
MR. REISCHL: They are not increasing the density, they
basically want to put a slightly larger housing unit, and that extra
one foot will allow them to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the regular minimum
setback under county code, not under PUD?
MR. REISCHL: Not under PUD, the minimum would be seven
and a half feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' And so this exceeds the
minimum?
MR. REISCHL: Of the regular zoning district, correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, and that's -- I agree
conceptually with Mr. Abernathy, that this may be -- it's hard to
imagine why this is so small. But that would be something we'd
look at Land Development Code time, if I understand the process,
because we already have a minimum that's smaller than the
minimum proposed in this PUD; true or false?
MR. REISCHL: The minimum in the zoning district is seven
and a half, which would be larger than what this is proposed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm --
MR. REISCHL: Right. However, many PUD's in the county
have the 10 feet separation between structures, whether as a
five and five or a zero and 10. There's several ways that can be
Page 116
January 11, 2000
accomplished.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What size home can be built
today versus where they want to go?
MR. REISCHL: I did not consider that. I'm sure Mr. Arnold
could answer that question for you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, do you have anything
you wanted to add?
MR. NINO: If I may speak to the philosophy. The rationale is
that because it's in a PUD and the PUD is more of a controlled
environment, we -- the tracts are marketed by one developer,
typically, as opposed to lots in Naples Park or lots in Bonita
Shores where you don't know who is going to develop next to
you, you don't know if it's a one-story building or a two-story
building. Those extenuating circumstances have always justified
in this case a slight reduction in the spacing requirements
between buildings.
So as Fred says, that standard is well used throughout
Collier County. And I think you will agree with me that it has
produced quality environments. And people love to live in those
locations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those are zero lot lines.
MR. NINO: Whether it's zero lot line or five feet on either
side or zero on one side or 10 on the other, the fact remains that
the lot -- that separation has been successful.
And if you think about the rationale for the separation in the
first place, after all, it is the sky exposure plain at a 45-degree
angle, it says thou shalt get enough light, air and circulation.
And in our opinion, planning literature supports a 10-foot
separation between buildings.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the petitioner.
Mr. Arnold, how are you?
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, Wayne Arnold.
I think the discussion is pretty clear where we're headed,
and that is to reduce the setback from six feet to five feet. And
this is essentially for Phase II of the project. The infrastructure
is in, the lots are platted, the lake has been dug. The Phase I
portion of this project has a six-foot separation. We're merely
Page 117
January 11, 2000
trying to respond to a very successful product type that we're
now marketing and building essentially across the street at a
project called Eden on the Bay.
That also has with it a 10-foot separation between
structures. We're looking to continue that same type of dwelling,
respond to the market change over the past two years which
required a six-foot separation.
Again, no density change is in effect. None of the residents
internal to the project have offered an objection to this. We think
the standard is well documented through most of the PUD's for a
villa-type project in Collier County.
It's very similar to things we're finding in the Audubon,
Windstar, the Vineyards, you name it. Throughout Collier County,
a villa product with a 10-foot separation is a very standard
number.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else you want to get
on the record?
MS. ARNOLD: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any public speakers in this?
MR. McNEES: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
further discussion?
aye.
Any
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anyone opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries, 4-1.
Item #12B2
Page118
January 11, 2000
ORDINANCE 2000-02, PETITION PUD-90-17(1), KAREN BISHOP OF
PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., REPRESENTING
BISHOP JOHN NEVINS, DIOCESE OF VENICE, REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO A "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES COMPLIMENTARY TO THE
EXISTING RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE ST. JOHN
THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH PUD, ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 111TH AVENUE NORTH
APPROXIMATELY 3/4 MILE WEST OF U.S. 4t, CONSISTING OF
14.9 + ACRES - ADOPTED
12(B)(2), Petition PUD-90-17 for the Diocese of Venice.
MR. MURRAY: Which one? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 12(B)(2), PUD-90-17.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: St. John the Evangelist.
MR. MURRAY: I wanted to make sure I had the right one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need to swear you all in.
Anybody who's going to participate in this, please stand and
raise your right hand and prepare to be sworn. (All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would certainly hope when
we're talking about zoning for a church that we'd all be telling
the truth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So help us God.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You don't normally say no to these.
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon to you. For the record, I'm
Don Murray, principal planner with the planning services
department.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm going to go try to
short-circuit this. Have there been any objection to this
anywhere along the line?
MR. MURRAY: There has been no objections.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Ms. Bishop, is there
anything that you need to get on the record? MS. BISHOP: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, thanks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The EAC voted 7-1. There was
Page119
January 11, 2000
one opponent because of the turtles, right?
MR. MURRAY: The gopher relocation plan.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that an acceptable plan? I
raise the same question. I mean, if-- I think he had the right
point, why relocate them if you're going to kill them? Why don't
you just kill them up front?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is the plan to kill them?
MR. MURRAY: No, the plan is not to kill them.
Barbara Burgeson is here, and she's the environmental
specialist, and I'll let her handle the question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's one --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They had the same problem when
they built the church, okay? It was a tortoise problem then. We
had one massive turtle soup supper and took care of everything.
Wait till that comes out.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just want to know what we're
going to do with them. You know, it's my parish but --
MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with
planning services.
This project has currently 5.15 acres of upland scrub habitat
with 40 -- I think it was 40 -- 49 active and 23 inactive gopher
tortoise burrows. The petitioner is proposing to relocate all of
the tortoises off-site.
We don't have a commitment in terms of exactly where
they're going to relocate them to, so we can't say that it's going
to be bad for the tortoises to be relocated. But the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Have we successfully done it in
the past or has anybody in the county successfully relocated
tortoises in the past?
MS. BURGESON: Yes, they have.
The concern has been in the past that there is an infection,
that if you relocate them into an infected population, it could
cause all the tortoises to become infected. But you can relocate
them into a habitat without tortoises, so you could relocate this
entire population into an unpopulated habitat. And they've been
successfully relocated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So could we -- we should make
Page 120
January 11, 2000
that perhaps a condition, that it be in an unpopulated habitat, the
relocation?
MS. BURGESON: You could do that. What you'd probably
want to do -- the stipulation that the Environmental Advisory
Council had approved was that they obtained a state permit for
relocation, as opposed to in times properties have obtained
receiving or -- receiving sites that have just accepted them, as
opposed to going through a formal permit process. But we're
requiring that they go through a formal permit process for
relocation, and then the state would have to approve that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That sounds reasonable to me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You know, the last thing I want
to do is make this any longer, but what kind of infections do
gopher tortoises carry that infect other gopher tortoise
communities with?
MS. BURGESON: Their respiratory infections; in other
words, upper respiratory infections.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You've got to get them to quit
smoking, Tim.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's right.
Ms. Bishop, you got anything you want to get on the record?
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the diocese.
Not anything specific, other than I have actually had to pay
veterinary bills for turtles with respiratory problems before, so --
and they are very expensive little colds that they get, too, I can
assure you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Little tiny nebulizers they put on
them.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can you imagine looking down
their throats?
MS. BISHOP: I truly had no idea that they could do this until
it actually did happen to me. And one turtle cost me 650 bucks
to get his little respiratory problem taken care of. So we, I can
assure you, do not want to put them where we're going to have
to pay vet bills to take care of these turtles.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And having the state permitting
process will address that.
Page 121
January 11, 2000
MS. BISHOP: And we -- yes, it will. And we also have donor
sites where we know they're not infected. So we do have
options at our disposal.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I bet Mother Nature will
help us out, too.
Mr. McNees, do we have any public speakers on this item?
MR. McNEES: You have none.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Wow. Let's close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have one question --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question, Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- for Ms. Bishop.
It states on here that there's a rectory current on-site?
MS. BISHOP: Not currently on-site. I think they're proposing
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Existing. That's what I thought, it
was proposed.
MS. BISHOP: They had a use, an existing use, but the
rectory, as far as I know, doesn't exist on-site.
But they do have a use for it, but they just haven't physically
had the money or put it anywhere.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I repeat my motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion from
Commissioner Mac'Kie, a second from Commissioner Norris to
approve the item with that one stipulation, I assume, that the
state handle the gopher tortoise --
aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, it's in there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- situation?
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor or the motion, please state
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
Page 122
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Of course not. You don't vote
against God. That's 5-0.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 2000-03, REVISING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE
SCHEDULE - SCHEDULE C ADOPTED~ EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2000
We'll go to 12(C)(1), which is the -- well, is there any interest
in this one, adopt an ordinance revising the road impact fee rate
schedule?
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, forgive me, if I can interrupt for
a second, please. I notice we have one speaker who submitted a
slip to speak to Item 12(B)(5), which shows on the agenda as
continued through February the 8th, and want to make sure that
person's aware that that item is continued actually until
February 8th. Mr. Huff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The substance of that item is
what?
MR. McNEES: It's a --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Rezone.
MR. McNEES: -- PUD rezone. Alexandria PUD.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right, but he's not here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that person gone?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
MR. McNEES: Just wanted to make sure he wasn't still
sitting out there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Road impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just tell us we're not going to
have to see the overhead again, because we've seen it twice.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. KANT: Good afternoon, commissioners. Edward Kant,
transportation services director.
This is a follow-up item to an item that we presented to you
on December 14th. At that time we had gone through a fairly
elaborate presentation, and with some background on how a new
Page 123
January 11, 2000
fee schedule was arrived at. We'd also presented four
alternatives and made a recommendation for what we were
calling Table C, or Alternative C.
At that time the board indicated that they would like to have
some further time to review it and to discuss it -- or to get some
feedback from interested parties, the DSAC, the CBIA, and any
other interested citizen.
So we met -- the date escapes me. We met earlier this
month with the DSAC. They had raised some issues and
questions, and presented a review -- I shouldn't say the DSAC,
but the CBIA had hired their own consultant to review our work
and presented some issues, which we've addressed.
I handed out three things to you. The first was the --just
another copy of the slide show you already saw. The second is a
response to the letter from the CBIA consultant, and that has
been shared with CBIA and with the consultant. And I believe
that we're all on the same page at this point.
And thirdly was a -- an estimate of the revenues from the
Table B and Table C, just to give you a feel for what types of
revenues we'd be looking at. And in response to a request from
CBIA to request that any action that you take today to agree to a
new road impact fee schedule, the implementation of that be
deferred to allow for projects in the pipeline.
There had been a number of suggestions and in the table
prepared for you, we tried to tie it into the end of a fiscal quarter.
We would recommend at the very earliest that any
implementation of a new schedule be held off until April 1. I
believe we also submitted to you July I and obviously the
beginning of the fiscal year. But it's our -- staff's contention that
waiting till the end of the fiscal year really is going to defer a
significant amount of money.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will it work if we go with
Schedule C, beginning April 1st?
MR. KANT: Yes.
Page 124
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions?
Let's go to the public -- whoops, Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I was just looking at this table,
comparison of fee schedules. I don't know if that shows our
three-tiered fee schedule here. But over there when it is talking
about the sizes, there's some typographical errors. It says one is
less than 1,499 square feet. And then it goes 1,599 to 2,500, so
you --
MR. KANT: That should be 1,500, Commissioner. That is
strictly a typo.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. And it also -- the top one
should say equal to or less, or else if a house was 1,499, then
you'd have a problem, where does it go?
MR. KANT: That's correct. And again, these were done for
iljustrative purposes. I believe that in the actual ordinance
schedule, which was part of the ordinance, that has been
corrected. And I can double-check that while you're -- if there are
any other questions or speakers.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I just wanted to point out
that we do need to make sure that we have a correct figure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's no exempt size element
in there?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, no exemption from the
middle side.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, how many public
speakers do we have on this item?
MR. McNEES: You have one. That would be David Ellis.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One.
David, how are you?
MR. ELLIS: Good morning -- good afternoon, I'm doing fine.
I'm David Ellis with the Collier Building Industry Association.
Once again, wanted to come and speak to this issue.
We did -- at the last meeting, we mentioned we'd received
the report. We wanted to get a consultant to look at it. We got
Hank Fishkind, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with, to
look at it. On his review, the two most significant issues that he
raised are questions, when he looked at the report, that there
Page 125
January 11, 2000
wasn't significant backup as relating to the cost of the road
construction, that Tindale-Oliver was bringing, as well as the
amount of money they were saying for right-of-way, the purchase
of right-of-way costs.
We did meet with them this morning, and they showed us
how they arrived at those numbers, and I'd have to say -- I mean,
without contending. It made sense. Yeah, I mean, I guess at
some point I'm obviously going to go pass it back onto Mr.
Fishkind.
But in -- one of the things we tried to do in this process --
and I feel like from CBIA's perspective we've tried to be as
genuine as possible in saying whatever we can do to help this
process along. It's been somewhat of a different process,
because oftentimes when we address these fees, we try to find
every which way to say stop, let's not do this. And we've always
said from the beginning of this that we want to pay our fair
share, but we do want to ensure in this process that it is the fair
share of the new resident coming to our county and the new
business coming to our county, that they're actually paying the
right amount.
To that end I feel fairly comfortable that the numbers are
there. If you ask me to give 100 percent stamp of approval on
that, I don't feel comfortable with that, but yet instead of trying
to delay that or use that as another kind of a tactic, I'd say let's
press on.
The two big issues that have come to my attention and I
guess in the big picture what I wanted to bring up this afternoon
related to which fee structure and then the timing of the
implementation. And those have really been the two things that I
guess are of greatest concern to the industry as I've heard it.
First of all, in the big picture of -- we've talked about it,
we've pretty much conceded that impact fees are in no way the
answer to keep pace and to do what we need to do in our county
for road construction and raising money.
That being the case, I would suggest that we adopt the fee
structure, Structure B, which assumes the continuation of the
five-cent gas tax.
Page 126
January 11, 2000
When Tindale-Oliver came before you back in December,
that was actually the fee structure that they recom -- they
brought to you as a recommendation, because it did assume the
continuation of that fee. Although, the difference in the fees
aren't a lot, the message it sends to our community is that we do
fully intend to continue to keep that pay structure or that fee in
place for the future.
Now -- and again, I don't have a crystal ball what happens
and what doesn't happen. But I think it does send the right
message to our community about what we're trying to do with
funding. I mean, it's my understanding that even with that
five-cent and the increase in the impact fees, that there still
would be a shortfall in our MPO's planning as they look to the
future. And I realize that in some cases, we don't know where
that's going, but I think it's probably in our best interest of the
community to keep that in.
One of the good things your staff is doing right now is
preparing an ordinance that every two years we're going to
review these things, the impact fees. So we're not going to have
this big gap.
The hardest thing that's really happening to the new
resident now is they're seeing this huge increase in the fee,
because we haven't reviewed it since 1992. The good news is, is
we can still make this decision and hopefully assume that we
can keep that five-cent credit in the process for now. Two years
from now, when we come back to review it, if it doesn't seem
eminent that that's going to be continued, then we can take it
out. But at this point, I'd say leave it in, because I think it keeps
us sending the right message to our community.
The other thing is, as it relates to the fees, is when the fee
kicks in. And I have to tell you from the contractors, it's the
number one thing I've heard since this has really been in the
press. The real concern is, is they have to adjust business plans.
Many of them -- some of the large commercial deals have been
negotiating and these things are on the drawing board. Some of
the big engineering firms are working on them. And when you
talk about some of the increases you see in some of the large
Page 127
January 11, 2000
commercial projects, and frankly, even on some of the
single-family homes, it affects those deals in giving them enough
time to run at it.
In talking to people -- I mean, the Development Services
Advisory Committee sent you a letter requesting October the 1st.
You know, knowing where you're at and where the county's at
with that process, I realize politically that may not be
acceptable. But I would say something like six months would be
most helpful for the industry to adjust. But whatever you find in
that process, we're obviously going to have to comply with, but
giving us enough time to do that.
One of the things I'm proud of CBIA in this process and the
building industry in general is we really tried to step up and say
we want to do our fair share. Help us do that. And at the same
time, I'd ask you to be considerate of some of those things that
we've offered so that we can make this process go.
If I can answer any questions, I'm happy to.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is a question for Ed, and
maybe Ed Ilschner. I believe we were at that SWIFTE meeting,
and they talked about some state transportation dollars. I was
under the impression that in order to be able to -- I don't know if
the word qualify for some of that, required that we show we had
done everything we could to get with the gas tax and impact
fees. So with that in mind, then how can we step away from
continuing the gas tax?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we can't, unless we want to
give up our access to that money potentially.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I don't think we can afford to
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course not.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- give up our access to that, okay?
So, go ahead Ed.
MR. KANT: I believe that the -- there is an initiative. I do
not believe that's a law that's on the books right now. But I
believe that it was Representative Goodlette that indicated that
he would support that initiative. And at this point, the legislature
Page 128
January 11, 2000
is still out, so to speak. But there is some sentiment to reward
those counties which maximize all of their other sources.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We've done everything we can do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need to be careful to track
that and try to get it implemented, but -- as it goes through the
legislative process.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And that's why if we adopted C,
we wouldn't be in that bind --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- if I understand that correctly.
That's why I had marked in here C is the most logical to protect
all of our bases.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. And I think what I'm
about to say is true is that -- if it's not, please correct me. That if
we adopted the fee under Schedule C and say in the future
decided to retain the gas tax, we'd still have a shortfall in our
MPO funding.
MR. KANT: In either scenario that's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So Schedule C, even if it is your
goal to extend the gas tax, which I know it's not a unanimous
goal, but even if it is your goal to extend the gas tax in the
future, we still have a shortfall, even if we adopt Schedule C and
keep the gas tax. So I don't think we could do anything other
than, anything less than Schedule C.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Brief comment before we look
for a motion, and that is just thanks to CBIA. We -- it's easy to
say no and just fight everything all the way. I think that you all
have been very responsible in recognizing that this does*need to
be updated since the 1992 numbers, and your willingness to
work with the county on that.
And often the building industry is painted out as -- painted as
the bad guy. And in this case, anyway, you've gone done a great
job at with working with the community in trying to do what's
fair, so thanks.
MR. KANT: Commissioner, if I may, I'd like to clear up a
question that Commissioner Norris raised. And on Page 10 of
Page 129
January 11, 2000
your executive summary, which is Page 7 of 8 of Attachment 1,
the three categories are listed as less than 1,500 square feet,
1,500 to 2,499 and 2,500 or larger. So that's been covered, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
board?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We will close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just ask, Schedule C
anticipates that we will not continue the five cent gas tax; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That you'll not do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. KANT: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those numbers --
MR. KANT: Schedule C is --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe it -- I think that is right.
That's the reason it was said before.
MR. KANT: Schedule C assumes the sunsetting of the five
cent gas tax in 2003, with the continued reallocation of the six
cent gas tax.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it still acknowledges -- and
please don't -- if I'm confused on this, please correct me.
I think that I'm going to vote for Schedule C, and in the
future I'm going to support continuing the gas tax, and we're still
going to be short on money. Is that a true statement?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But I think the question that was
raised the last time we talked is that if we're going to continue
the gas tax, we can't charge schedules.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, no, the point there was
you might have to make an adjustment at such a time that you
gave up the gas tax.
MR. KANT: That's the point that Mr. Ellis was making, was
Page 130
January 11, 2000
that the new ordinance, which we'll be bringing back to you in
several months, will have a much stronger requirement in it that
we review these things every other year. And hopefully at that
point in time we may have a different outlook on the gas tax.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if-- I've got to get this
straight. I understand that the math -- the math that was used is
the basis for generating the Schedule B fee assumed that there
would be a continuation of the gas tax. And I understand that
the math used for computing the fee on Schedule C assumed that
there would not be a continuation of the gas tax.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: After 2003.
MR. KANT: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nevertheless, we -- can we, Mr.
Weigel, vote for Schedule C and leave the question open for 2003
on whether or not the gas tax will be continued at that point in
time?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if we made a change at
that time, you might have to adjust your impact fee at that time.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Depending on the facts as they
appear at that time, which I predict won't require the change but,
you know, that's just a prediction.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But wait, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm going to make a motion
that we adopt the Schedule C fee with the effective date, even
though I'd like to make it April 1st, but July 1st is probably more
practical. And by way of compromise, Mr. McNees, though, wants
to speak.
MR. McNEES: Just from a staff point of view on the timing,
we're certainly in agreement that whatever administratively way
the builders need for communication for pass-through for them to
be able to collect the appropriate fees. And I guess I understand
that there's a longer lead time, maybe, for a large-scale
development. Although, I would also say that for a large-scale
development, they have probably a better ability than anyone to
absorb a change like this, given the numbers we're talking about.
That the longer we push this thing out, the greater the
Page 131
January 11, 2000
opportunity there is for a year's worth of permits, so to speak, to
come in within the next five or six months, which essentially
defeats the purpose of raising them in the first place.
If people -- if we give them time enough to get in line to get
the lower fee, we might as well not raise it until later. So that's
just a consideration. Staff would encourage you not to put that
date out too far in the future.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hadn't considered that what
would happen is everybody would just go pull their permits for
the year before July 1st.
MR. McNEES: And I'm not suggesting that everyone would
do that, because you still have a time limit once you pull your
permit. You still have to be able to construct. But that would be
a factor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it important that it end on a
quarter?
MR. KANT: Only for the convenience of the accountants. It
can end or begin whenever you decide it would end or begin.
We've simply made those recommendations, again, for the
convenience of being in a quarterly break point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to change my motion
then and go with April 1st.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it then.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The motion is to adopt Schedule
C effective 4-1-2000.
Discussion on that? Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let's go back to Schedule B again.
If we were to get out here in 2003 and we decide that we want
to keep the sales -- the gas tax, would there be any grounds
whereby the people who have based -- in other words, the impact
fees that have been based on the fact that we would not have it
-- would have paid more during this period of time and that they
could come back and claim that we owe them money?
MR. WEIGEL: It's a very good question. And I may allow the
representative from Tindale-Oliver to step in, because they put
the precepts in place in the first place. I'm prepared to answer
it, but I'd like to let them speak first, if I may.
Page 132
January 11, 2000
MR. TINDALE: I've done over 40 ordinances in Florida. I
usually work with legal people, and we've always been extremely
conservative in our approach. The answer to the question is, if
you hired me to review your ordinance, the first thing I would do
is highlight that you did that, as one of the items for someone to
combat the ordinance.
By the same token what I can tell you is that I feel very
comfortable that we've been conservative enough, where if you
decide to do that, I can defend it.
I like the -- I like the margin for the B, but I feel comfortable
that if that is what you want to do, then in terms of what we use
for costs and the other variables that we've used, that I can
defend that you're not overcharging. And that's what the issue is
going to be, is that you're --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
MR. TINDALE: -- you've charged too much and you've not
given enough credit. So I came in with a comfort level better for
B, but I can tell you, I can defend either one of them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And for the record, your name
is?
MR. TINDALE: Steve Tindale, with Tindale-Oliver and
Associates.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I just have to comment that
we can't afford a comfort level in this county. We can't afford a
big comfort cushion when we're as far behind in transportation
as we are.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I know, but I can't -- then
saying that, then how can you even consider not doing a --
keeping the gasoline tax?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's not the agenda item
before us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but that's -- that's before us
in the future. But I'm telling you today, I'm going to support
extending the gas tax in the future. And what I heard Mr. Tindale
say is that there's enough cushion, our numbers are conservative
Page 133
January 11, 2000
enough, that even with Schedule C, even if we extended the gas
tax, our fees are Iow enough to be defensible. And that's where I
want them. High enough right on the edge of defensible.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: On the cusp.
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #12C2
LDC AMENDMENTS, DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SIGN CODE
REVISIONS - 12 ITEMS AS LISTED - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which takes us to the sign
ordinance laundry list. And our only objective today was to have
it in a crystal clear readable manner so that those in the
business community who have alleged that it hasn't been clear
will have a clear understanding. And I assume we're either going
to say yes, this is what we tried to communicate Wednesday
night or make whatever corrections we need to.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And let me -- let me make a
comment here, because I've been thinking about this over the
interim.
What we're trying to do is to get rid of certain signs that may
not fit today's sign code and, therefore, we would like to see
brought up to modern standards.
Now, we're interested in whether or not the sign meets the
code. We're not particularly interested in the date that the sign
was built. So, therefore, it doesn't make sense to set a date
such as 1991 or 1986 or 1994 or any other date. It should be
dictated by whether or not the sign meets the '91 sign code.
That's what we should be looking at. If the sign was built in
1942 but it meets the '91 sign code, why make them tear it
down? I mean, it just doesn't make sense.
Page 134
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you really want to eliminate
that three-year out of there, you just want to make sure that they
meet the code.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, hang on just a second.
Because if they don't meet the code, regardless of when it was
built, if they don't meet the 90-91 code, can they have three
years, or no? You're saying eliminate that three years. I'm
suggesting that's not what we should do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
said.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
No, I don't think that's what he
No.
That's not what he said.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think that's what he said,
that's why I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I guess that's what I am
saying. You don't want that in there? I mean, what we really
want to do is get it to code. We're all in agreement on that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And if they're not in code, they've
got to come to the new standard.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the time, whether it's three
years or whatever -- we can discuss today, if you want to do that.
But I'm just saying, it doesn't matter to me if the sign was built
in 1925, as long as it meets today's -- or at least the '91 code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why make them tear it down?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which is consistent with what
we said Wednesday night. We said it had to meet the '91 code.
Anything built after '91 obviously met code or it's illegal.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but that's not what we said
Wednesday night. What we said Wednesday night was anything
that was built before 1991 had to come down and put up a new
Page135
January 11, 2000
sign.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What I'm saying is no, as long as
it meets the '91 code, I don't care when it was built. Let's -- you
know, why make them tear it down?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Your clarification was my
intention Wednesday night, so I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If that wasn't what we did.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And let me just be sure.
Assuming we adopted a three-year then, Commissioner
Constantine -- Commissioner Norris, then any -- I'm just trying to
put myself in the shoes of a code enforcement officer who's
sitting out now to say what signs conform and what signs don't.
If you were -- if I have -- in the year 2003, assuming a
three-year amortization, all they have to do is say does this
comply with the 90-91 code. And if it does not, three years, in
2203, it's illegal.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the way I see it happening is
that the code enforcement people will make that determination,
give them a notice, say, at that point they have whatever time
limit that they decided --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like they always do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- to make the corrections. But I
just can't imagine that -- you know, because you're -- you know,
as soon as you do this and say anything before '91 has got to be
changed, then you're going to come up --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not what was meant.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- with one of those built on
December the 31st of 1990 and it meets today's sign code. I
mean, you're going to find that; that's the first thing that you're
going to find.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That certainly was not my
intention Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine either.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not my intent either,
Page 136
January 11, 2000
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But that's what we did say
Wednesday night.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So essentially, anything built
before -- let's say we adopt this later this month. Anything built
before that, regardless of when, from now since the beginning of
time, has to meet the '91 code. Anything built from that day
forward would have to meet the new code that we're all wanting
here. Anything built from --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Anything --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- January 25, 2000 on --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- would have to meet the new
code.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Certainly, exactly. Sure, of
course.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If l may--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Badamtchian, looking very
anxious over there.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This
item was continued from --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record, you are?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For the record, my name is Chahram
Badamtchian, from planning services staff. Sorry.
This item was continued from last Wednesday night hearing.
You asked -- you had specific direction regarding six items in the
code, which we revisited them.
When it says staff recommendation, that's was what was in
the code when we presented to you last Wednesday. Board
direction is, to the best of our recollection, that's what you asked
us to do. And staff comment is if you have any problem or
there's a problem with implementing that, that's what we are
trying to explain.
Item No. 1, we didn't have any problem. You asked us to --
let's go to Item No. 2. Item No. 2, design criteria.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE= Do we have an extra copy of the
list so we can put it on the visualizer so that anyone watching
Page 137
January 11, 2000
knows what Item I and 2 and 3 are?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't know if that's legible.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a list of what I gave back
to them. I have another list here that's almost in sync with that.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have copies in here, if anybody wants
a copy, they're more than welcome to have it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But basically the first item was
construction signs.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN'- Construction signs, and we decid -- you
asked us not to change it at this time. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- and we will come back later with
that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Design criteria. We had some design
criteria, minimal design criteria. And at the end of--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can I interrupt just for a
second? I was under the impression today we were going to go
through our little laundry list and then you'd put it in legal form in
time for our hearing two weeks from --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We weren't looking for --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is the laundry list.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess -- and perhaps I was
anticipating --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We're working on two different
lists then.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I was anticipating
something simpler. Commissioner Carter had put together a list,
which I think you all just polished up a little bit, but has 12 items
on it, all on one page. And I thought-- I was under the
impression, it sounds like maybe the majority of the board was
under the impression, that that was the list we were going to
work off today, make sure each one of them was what we
thought, and then let the public comment and make sure it was
what they understood from Wednesday, and then put it in more
Page 138
January 11, 2000
formal written in time for two weeks from today.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And we don't have this in the legal
form. I think the only reason there's additional paperwork there
is we did include a section of what was proposed and what the
board directed. We did that only for clarity, because we were
criticized about having a lot of different documents floating
around.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me give you my
interpretation of clarity. One page. MR. MULHERE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One page. It doesn't talk about
Section 2.5.5.5.1.4, it just has Item I through 11 or I through 12.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So if we could work from this
one, because we're trying to make sure everyone is crystal clear
on what is included and what is not included. And that list
couldn't be clearer.
Thank you, Commissioner Carter, for doing that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I had some help.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And do we have one of those for
the visualizer?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have one with 11 items.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I appreciate the effort to --
to -- for clarity. But just, I think because there was so much
confusion, on behalf of some of the business community, this
couldn't be any simpler.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That doesn't include everything that
you talked about.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you'll point out to us --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I mean, it talks about finalized gas
station sign standards. I don't know if we even talked about gas
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, let's work through the list
one at a time in order of I through 12, and if for some reason it's
on there and it shouldn't be, we'll correct you. And if
something's missing and you know that, then point it out to us.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Stepped up enforcement, yes. You're
Page t39
January 11, 2000
going to hear from Michelle Arnold. She's asking for more code
enforcement.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Everybody agrees stepped up
enforcement was one of the items.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 2, elimination of all
exposed exterior neon. Everybody agrees that was part of it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, but when now? There's --
here once again, somebody has one already today that's legally
permitted --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, all of this --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- are you going to make them
take it down?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or is that going to be in the same
rules as any other sign?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The entire code --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All of the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, please.
The entire code is exactly what we just said. If you were in
compliance --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- if your sign was built prior to
the day we adopt the ordinance, assuming that's two weeks from
today, then you have to the meet the 1991 code.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody from the year zero
through the year 2000 has to meet that code. Anybody, after we
pass the ordinance, has to meet whatever is new. So if
somebody already has neon and they put it up yesterday, and it
meets that code, they're fine.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're okay. That's what I
wanted to clarify.
Now, how many signs were there in the year zero?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They were chiseled. I have one
Page 140
January 11, 2000
in the office, as a matter of fact.
Elimination of all exposed exterior neon, we all agreed that
that would be one of the items.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. 3--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question on No. 2.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two questions. One is what you
just said to Commissioner Norris is absolutely true but for
whatever amortization period we adopt. It's -- their neon sign is
only good until the amortization requires it to be removed.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, no, no. We said we dropped
the amortization and only -- let's say -- let me use an example of
Long Horn Steak House. Let's say it becomes Joe's Steak
House. They would have to change the sign and they'd probably
have to get rid of their exterior neon, because they changed
business owners, and that would change it. But as long as Long
Horn stays there, they never have to remove their exterior neon
until they make some change on the building.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If they were legal prior to that
date, they get to keep it. If they become illegal in any way,
shape or manner, hurricane, change of sign code, they have to
get rid of it.
Chahram, I'm just as frustrated as you, so hang in there.
Item 3, elimination of all illuminated signage inside windows
within three years of this ordinance. Recognizing none is
allowed under current code anyway.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is there any legal problem with
that? Did we decide on that the last time?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Last time you said you had no problem
with this. That's why it's not part of my laundry list.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Elimination of fluorescent
colors.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed.
Page 141
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Use of Iogos and primary colors
is not prohibited.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Despite the rumors to the
contrary.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: True. But you said that you do not
want a logo to protrude from the sign, you want it to be confined
to the sign.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct. That goes to size of
sign and shape of sign as opposed to prohibiting the actual logo.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. 6, finalized gas station sign
standards, as per staff, an increase pole cover to 100 percent of
width. I don't recall us saying that as part of the list
Commissioner Carter went through at the end of the meeting.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It was not part of the discussion last
time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that what we had said
was the gas station standards that we have adopted for gas
station out-parcels were going to go apply to all out-parcels.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that the same -- I thought
that --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, that's not the same thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: What happened last time, six months
ago when we amended the code -- or actually a year ago when
we amended the code to reduce the height of the signs for gas
stations, the code says no other signs shall be allowed for gas
stations. So they could not have wall sign. All we are doing is
adding a wall sign. So like any other business, they get a wall
sign. And it was not part of our discussion last time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would change Item No. 6 to say
out-parcel signage limitations are identical, irregardless of use,
whether it's a gas station or other out-parcel use.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which I think is --
Page 142
January 11, 2000
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's what we have in the code.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- No. 9.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. 9.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So we're just saying eliminate 6.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, there was a separation. All
they're trying to do is get clarification that this would be
finished. And maybe I didn't include -- I had it on the list and
maybe I didn't address it at our last meeting. But it was brought
to my attention we needed to clean it up. So it's here, if no one
has a problem with it. All it was is there for clarification.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
board on No. 6?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand it. What
would it do?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You remember when we looked
at the 7-Eleven sign that was on the -- and there were a couple of
poles there and I think Mike Davis or someone pointed out that
actually needed to be wider, I think it was 20 percent each side.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The suggestion here is that
should be 100 percent. On the base should be 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I like that. I thought that
we did agree to that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, whether we did or not, you
like it now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like it now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter likes it
now. Do we have a third who likes that now?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is for gas stations only --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- on No. 6?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct. On No. 6.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Gas stations only.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. I do want to make a
comment when we get to monument signs in general, but --
Page 143
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sounds like we have a majority
on No. 6.
No. 7, reduction of wall signs as follows. Of course, the 20
percent ratio staying in the code. Then it shows the different
floor areas, 150, 200 and 250 square foot, depending on the size.
Commissioner Norris had a question on that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, we had spoken about
60,000 square feet, so I don't know what -- it doesn't matter to
me, I just want to make sure that we're clear on which one we're
doing, either 50 or 60.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody care?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I hear the question. And I did
have -- you're right, Commissioner Norris, I had it 25,000 to
60,000. And then the sheet that I have back now is 25 to 50. It
might have been a typo error on my part. But I think -- I would
like to ask Mike Davis.
Is it 25 to 50 or 25 to 60? Because --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 60 is what we discussed.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: To 60,000, according to what we had
last time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect Mr. Davis
shrugged.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 60,000, being what we
discussed. I think we better stick to that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. And I don't have any
problem.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No objection from the board
members to keeping that at 60?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Doesn't matter to me. I'm sure it
will matter to someone, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good catch.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. 8, reduction of directory
signs to 150 square feet, 20-foot height, 15 setback, with a
minimum of four tenants and a maximum of eight tenants. I keep
smiling and thinking, what if they have vacancies in there, in
their place. If you don't have four tenants in there, you can't
have a sign.
Page 144
January 11, 2000
feet.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that say 180 or 1507
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Last time we talked about 180 square
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 180.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That was brought to my attention
that was incorrect. That's why I changed it to 150.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 1507
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think that was part of that
mathematics. There was only so much you could do with it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't support this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You do not support that one?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody else have a problem
with that one?
Yeah, Commissioner Berry, any particular reason?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: On this -- the four tenants and the
eight tenants thing?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I just can't -- I just don't go
with that, because I think it raises some problems. Like you
said, what if you don't even have the number of people already in
the building?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may answer that. Businesses, they
are entitled to a pole sign. This is an additional sign. And in
order to qualify for that, you have to have a large shopping
center type or large office complex with several businesses. And
the reason being -- having a minimum of four is most mini storage
buildings, just because of their size they qualify for a large sign.
But that's not what we are trying to do. We are trying to give
enough sign space on the sign for different businesses within the
building. That's why we have that minimum of four businesses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, if you didn't you
might have a mini storage that has a pole sign that it could
already have, plus a directory sign that didn't give any additional
Page 145
January 11, 2000
information because there's not any new information to give.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' For just having two signs on the same
road, 100 square feet, 150 square feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the way I remembered it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is the rest of the board okay on
that one?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay on that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 4-1 split on that.
Reduction of shopping center out-parcel freestanding signs;
the same ground signs as gas stations. And also increasing the
pole cover to 100 percent sign width. So the same thing we did
on No. 6 on the base.
Any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. I sure wish I knew the
practicality of some of this, because it just -- you know, I'm sorry,
I'm no expert in terms of what -- you know, a car driving down
the roadway, visibility, what you're looking at, what's the best
thing for vision to see and to know those kinds of things. I
haven't done a study, nor do I think anybody other than -- Tim,
you're the only one probably in marketing, perhaps you know
some kind of information in regard to this kind of thing. But I
certainly am no expert in sitting here and saying whether it
should be 60 square feet or 100 square feet or whatever square
feet.
I mean, this to me, it's very subjective. I don't --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For example --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's not a lot of science here in
what we're doing, folks, I'll tell you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: To the contrary, there is. And I
think Mr. Badamtchian held up a book last time that showed
some very specific --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I do believe in all deference,
Mr. Chairman, that there's other information in addition to that
booklet that ought to be considered before we make these
decisions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, agreed. Absolutely agreed.
But I don't want anybody to think these are just numbers that
Page 146
January 11, 2000
have been arbitrarily picked.
The -- just by way of reference, the 7-Eleven sign last week
was roughly the size that they're referencing right here, to see if
you need something to visualize, okay, what is 60 square feet, 8
feet high, and 10 back. That 7-Eleven sign that we had on the
visualizer last week is exactly that. Anybody else --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have a problem with No. 9,
because it's -- with taking the general ideas and working with the
people in the sign industry, I'm told that this would work. So
that's why it's there with those dimensions around it. Because I
look to them for their expertise.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Berry, just for
comfort, there -- all we're saying in No. 9 is whatever we've
already done to gas station out-parcels, we're not going to do to
all out-parcels.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which frankly is very attractive.
And --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- that was the whole purpose of
my bringing that slide in last week. Sounds like we have four.
No. 10, reduction of freestanding signs to chart below. And
again, having the full cover to 100 percent of the width of sign.
And that has a sliding scale for arterial and collector roads,
versus local roads.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And there's a couple of examples
attached. If you want to see a 20-foot sign using ABC Tours, and
if you want to look at what we're proposing with the 15-foot
height, it shows you what you have done is got -- what we're
trying to do is get rid of the lollipops; look at these as
freestanding signs, get rid of the lollipops and make sure that
they're covered.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Quick question. The--
Commissioner Norris just pointed out the form you had on the
visualizer said increase pole cover to 50 percent of sign width.
The handout sheet we have is --
Page 147
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 100.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- 100 percent of sign width.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I've got a -- I want to chat
about this one anyway.
I understand that the reasoning for going to the 100 percent
pole width and making monument signs, and they are attractive,
but in the future, everybody's going to have a monument sign,
and there are some quite attractive pole signs that have a wide
pole cover, a 50 percent pole cover that is articulated a bit, not
just rectangular, and I don't know that I'm opposed to those at
all. I think some of them are quite attractive. And they might
have enough difference in them to break it up a little bit within
the community for the future.
I have no opposition at all to saying pole signs with 50
percent pole cover are just as acceptable as monument signs.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, what we were trying to do is
to eliminate the lollipop effect, and it still doesn't say, you know,
a monument sign -- maybe we have a visualization that they're all
square, but I think that that's not the case. There may be some
round ones, there may be some different configurations. We're
trying to eliminate that stick in the air. And we felt like covering
the bottom, whatever their design is, they can even have some
slats in them, for all I know. There is some architectural
freedom.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's one other --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- design freedom.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's one other point to be
made on that, too, that the monument sign, if it's to your left as
you're exiting a shopping center or something, for example, is
going to block your vision a whole lot more than a 50 percent
pole cover sign, and so it could be construed as a safety hazard.
I think that that's not a very strong argument. But I like the
argument that you get a little diversity by allowing a 50 percent
pole cover.
If you'll think of what you've got driving around town and
looking -- when you see a wide pole covered sign, they're not
Page 148
January 11, 2000
unattractive at all, at least in my view.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question. Out on U.S. 41,
the East Trail, beyond 951, out in the Everglades area, we have
businesses out there that have pole signs. And those pole signs,
number one, are pretty high up in the air, because they have to
be seen. Now, what are you going to do to that pole sign? Are
you going to tell them that they are going to cover that pole
sign? What are you going to do? Is that considered a municipal
sign? I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, don't forget that outside of
the urban area and in the agricultural area there's a different set
of rules.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And don't forget also, if it's
already existing and it met standard up until now, then you're
okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then it's okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's only if they change it, then
they would have to look at a different way to do it. All we're
suggesting is that they would -- I was going for the 100 percent
coverage, but I'm not going to lose the ball game over one issue,
so--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like 100 percent coverage.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm okay with 100 percent
coverage.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Three of us are okay with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's just put an asterisk by that
one for reference before we wrap things up.
No. 11, a nonconforming sign shall be brought into full
compliance as part of any future permitted change to the sign.
Permits for maintenance or repair do not constitute a change and
do not require compliance unless repairs exceed 50 percent of
the value of the sign.
Page149
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course what happens there is
instead of fixing the sign, you fix enough of it to be under 50
percent of the value this year, and then you do a little bit -- you
know, it will -- and this is the place where avoiding the
amortization -- this is where we lose the bang that we were
hoping to get, if we're not careful with this.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
I assume the --
don't agree.
-- four lines of this is an effort to
condense Commissioner Norris' extensive list last year of
hurricane damage or somebody changing businesses or so on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sale of the business. A lot of
things.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But the problem is 50 percent of the
value of the sign. What's the value of an existing sign, a
20-year-old sign? Are we going to ask an estimator to give an
official price tag to that sign?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can you suggest a more
effective way of doing that?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, what we are suggesting, that all
nonconforming sign built before 1991, either brought into
conformity, whatever code you feel like, a 1991 code or today's
code, will be replaced. At when -- within three years. And all the
other signs, as Commissioner Norris said last time, we can do it
when the business changes hands or they are closing the
business for a period of more than six months, something like
that.
Going with the value based, it's kind of hard to do. It's --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think we are saying everything
else you described. I think the only reason that 50 -- and
somebody from the legal team correct me. I think that the only
reason that 50 percent was, that's the number usually used when
we have hurricane damaged things that are nonconforming. If
something is more than 50 percent damaged, be that a structure
or otherwise, if it's nonconforming, then they have to come up to
code.
Page 150
January 11, 2000
Am I correct in assuming that's why it was included?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think we need to reword that.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: When they pull a -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me a second, though. But
I think the wording on this No. 11 needs some work anyway. A
nonconforming sign. Nonconforming to what, the 1991 sign
code? We've already said that all of those need to be brought up
to some sort of current code. So a nonconforming sign, what do
you mean when you say a nonconforming sign?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Nonconforming to current code
as it applies to whatever the situation is.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. To the code that we're
attempting to adopt, you're saying.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The 2000 code.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's fine. But it doesn't
mean a nonconforming sign that doesn't even conform to the '91
sign code. That's not what we're trying to get at at this time; is
that what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. Again, if anything -- if we
have a new code and something doesn't comply, for whatever
reason, it's still legal, but it's nonconforming. If it's damaged or
they want to change it out or whatever, that whole list you had
last week, that would be the time they'd have to come --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm making the distinction
between that and a nonconforming sign that doesn't even
conform to the '91 sign code.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct. They'll be required to
bring it up.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is everybody clear on that? I
realize we talked that more than -- we may need to clean up the
language. I think the intent is fairly clear. No. 11, we need to
work on that language.
No. 12, all freestanding signs shall display six-inch minimum
Page 151
January 11, 2000
height address numbers.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Out of everything that you have on
this list, I can definitely support that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You like that one.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do. I do support that. I don't
have any problem with that at all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Badamtchian, to the best of
your knowledge, is there anything we have left off this list that
we talked about last Wednesday night?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Last time you gave us some direction
regarding amortization. This time you're basically taking that
away. And I'm at a loss what you're asking us to do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm under the impression that
what we said is those things that were prior to January 25, 2000,
assuming that's when we pass the ordinance, but prior to
whenever we passed the new ordinance will have -- and did not
meet the 1991 code, will have a three-year time frame in which
to meet that code, or to update to our current code. Anything
between '91 and now is fine, unless they go through No. 11. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait, wait, hold on now. Anything
that meets the '91 sign code.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. Anything legal between
'91 and now. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are you okay with that,
Chahram? You understand that -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- the three-year would be for
those things prior to '91 that don't meet the '91 code?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If the sign doesn't meet 1991 code,
must be removed or made to conform with '91 code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Within three years.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Within three years.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But the problem I'm having is Marjorie
Student told me that '91 code is going to go away and we cannot
Page 152
January 11, 2000
force people to comply with a code that doesn't exist anymore.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think Marjorie is going to
correct you.
MS. STUDENT: What I meant was--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Who are you?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
I think I heard Mr. Badamtchian say something to the effect
that -- about making them conform to whatever code you wanted
to at what -- when you have to bring these old ones after the
three-year period into compliance. And it was my understanding
that the pre-1991 signs would have three years to comply with
what we're going to have on the books now. Is that not correct?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Absolutely correct.
MS. STUDENT: That's what I --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If they don't meet the old code,
then when they update, which they'll be required to within three
years, they'll have to meet the new code.
MS. STUDENT: Then that's what I was trying to explain to
Mr. Badamtchian, you just couldn't say whatever code you feel
like.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right, I'm going to try this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just hang on, because we've
got public speakers, too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I wanted to make a stab at what I think --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. MULHERE: -- could clarify this issue, if I can.
Signs permitted after January 1st, 1991 may remain in
place, unless they are structurally altered to a value exceeding
50 percent.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Assuming they are legal.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Assuming that they are legal and
Page 153
January 11, 2000
MR. MULHERE: Correct. That's what I'm talking about,
permitted. That's why I said permitted signs.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, okay.
MR. MULHERE: Permitted signs.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Any permitted signs.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, you want
to correct that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What we've just discussed here
today is, we don't care what date it was built, as long as it
conforms to the '91 sign code or better.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I know. There's a second part to my
statement.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I understand that, yeah.
The second part to my statement was signs that were
permitted, meaning they were legal, prior to 1991 are subject to
a three-year amortization period unless they conform to the 1991
sign code.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And even those have to conform
to the 2000 code if they meet the conditions outlined in No. 11.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That goes for anybody.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many public speakers do
we have on this?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: May I ask the board another question?
MR. McNEES: You have about four.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the public speakers
right now, and then we'll try to wrap this up after we hear from
them.
MR. McNEES: Your first is John Burton, who will be followed
by Mike Davis.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many do we have?
MR. McNEES: Four.
Page 154
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BURTON: Hi, I'm John Burton, for the record. I'm
speaking on behalf of Guardian Personal Storage at Davis and
Santa Barbara Boulevard.
I know that through everything here, most of my questions
have been answered, except for No. 11 of permitted change to
sign. Would that constitute as well if Sprint came in and said
your prefix is changed from 352 to 356 and I have to change my
sign, I would then have to conform to the new sign code?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you've got to change your sign.
MR. BURTON: I mean, ails I'm changing is a $500 taking the
face down and replacing three numbers, not a $10,000 sign
change.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think I hear the question. It
would have to exceed 50 percent of the value of the sign.
MR. BURTON: But didn't you just strike value and make it
structure?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, we took that out.
MR. BURTON: Or would this fall under maintenance?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bob?
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The change, if Sprint changed it,
an area code on him, and he had to change it on the sign.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. As far as I understood the direction
from the board, changing the face of the sign would not exceed
50 percent of the value of the structure; therefore, it would be
permissible. That's the way I understood it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we threw out that value.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on. I would hope that
rather than change the face of the sign would also be if you sold
the business and Bob Mulhere came in and had Bob's Storage,
which is where we're trying to make those changes. So I would
hope that we could interpret that as maintenance instead of--
and somebody from the legal team help me. But the area code
changes, we don't want to have 15,000 people suddenly have to
come up to code.
So if we can't do that, we have a problem. But if we can
Page 155
January 11, 2000
consider something like that maintenance, that takes care of the
problem.
MR. MULHERE: I think that we can do that, or we can
simply write it -- we can write it to address that issue, which is
change of copy.
MR. BURTON: Well, there's several issues. I mean, some
folks advertise their Web page on their sign. Web pages can
change due to, you know, traffic or area or -- in the future it could
be zoning. The changing of the sign or conforming to it, as far as
we stand, it doesn't make a difference if our sign's 20 feet or 15
feet. What I'm looking at is the wording to be clear enough that
a needless expense isn't going to be incurred.
Because we're not going to make a profit for quite some
time, as any new business is when they first start. I just don't
want to go back to the rest of my partners and go well, sorry,
guys, we -- you know, we a $500 change that now costs us
$10,000 in profit which is -- you know, that's 10 percent money
that we have to make.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think the answer was that
no, you won't have to do it just for that simple change.
MR. BURTON: Okay. And also for -- if we get a -- let's say
Hurricane Collier comes through and blows out my face sign, just
the face. Are we back -- did we strike --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If Hurricane Collier comes
through and does more than 50 percent damage, it's the same as
Hurricane Collier--
MR. BURTON: Is it structural or --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me try to answer it.
It's the same as any structure. If you have a nonconforming
building and more than 50 percent is damaged, you've got to
bring the building up to code. And so the same would apply for
signs.
MR. BURTON: That's structural damage?
MR. MULHERE: No, it's value of the sign.
MR. BURTON: Value of the sign.
MR. MULHERE: Value of the sign. Whether it's structural or
not structural, if it exceeds 50 percent of the value of the --
Page 156
January 11, 2000
replacement of value of the sign.
MR. BURTON: Okay. So structural's not part of this
wording?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Apparently not. Replacement
value.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, structural would certainly
be included if it damaged the structure and that was 50 percent
of the value of your sign, yes. But if it didn't damage your
structure and it cost you 50 percent of the value of your sign to
replace the face, it would still be. So it may be structure, but it's
not limited to structural.
MR. BURTON: Okay. That's all I have, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Good point,
particularly on a phone number.
MR. McNEES: Guidance from the chairman on speakers
submitted after the item's already begun? It has not been the
past Chair's practice to hear those. Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many -- did we have extras
submitted?
MR. McNEES: One.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll hear it only because I
didn't say that today. But our practice is that we turn the items
in, in advance of the items so we don't end up with rebuttals as
part of our public comment. We'll hear the five today.
MR. McNEES: Following Mr. Davis will be Don Pickworth.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Mike Davis for the record,
representing Sign Craft.
The first item, the pre-'91 stuff, it seems like you've done
something that's very fair to the people that have those signs. If
I understand you correctly, what you're saying is if they had a
legally permitted sign prior to 1991, they get to keep it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Only if it meets at least the '91
code.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Right, exactly.
And which gets us down to No. 11, which is -- excuse me,
before I get there, you've talked about the width of the pole
cover, and it's a function of what you want them to look like, I
Page 157
January 11, 2000
think, is what you have to decide there. Because I tend to agree
with Commissioner Norris, 50 percent I think is enough that it
makes a pretty nice-looking sign. You may decide you want 100
percent or 75 or whatever. It's just a matter of what you visually
want it to look like.
I think if you stick to these bullet points and simply put the
criteria you've discussed on it and do away with this
architectural stuff where maybe there's supposed to be a cap,
but we don't quite understand what the cap may or may not look
like, you've done what you needed to do. Leave the design to the
architects and the sign people in the community to do.
Because I think what you're going to find is with this
criteria, you're going to get some good-looking signs. There's not
a problem with that.
The -- towards the end, how -- the compliance aspect. The
50 percent value is the standard, as you pointed out, Mr.
Chairman, that's in our Land Development Code, our Building
Code, I believe, that if any structure is damaged more than 50
percent, it must be brought up to today's code. And that's the
only reason that is there, because that applies to all structures.
The intent of this was, is that if a permitted change needs to
be done to a sign, that at that point in time that sign that is being
-- a permit is being pulled for will be brought into full compliance
with the code at that time, whatever it be. Whether it be the new
code you're discussing now or the code 10 years from now, it's a
mechanism that you're constantly keeping your signage in
compliance with the code.
And what you're saying I think to the business community is,
is if you have a legally permitted sign today, you can keep it as
long as you want to keep it. But if you come in and say I want to
change my sign to something different, then we expect you to
change your sign to comply to today's code. And I think that's a
fair approach to take.
And I agree that I think it should be on the record that a -- if
the area code changes for part of Naples, that's maintenance. I
mean, there are things like that that happen.
Or, you know, you talked about a street name change this
Page 158
January 11, 2000
morning. I mean, I don't think we would expect those people to --
simply because the street name changed, to bring their whole
sign in compliance over such a simple thing.
And bear in mind, this anticipates maintenance to the sign.
If a bottle is thrown through a sign face and the customer calls
and said you know, my insurance company, I need the bid, and
they wanted to simply replace their sign face the way it was
before, and that happens all the time, we do not -- according to
the sign code either proposed or today, we don't need a permit to
replace that sign face. But because it exceeds $750, we do need
a permit.
So this is to clarify that a change like that does not require
it being brought up to code, current code, because all you're
doing is replacing what's there. It's just as if you are repainting
the structure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So the lesson in this is if the
area code changes, just throw a bottle through your own sign
and you don't have to get a permit. I'm pretty sure that's not
what you were saying.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Of course not, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pickworth will be followed
by?
MR. McNEES: Dawn Jantsch.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask one question
regarding Mr. Davis' comment?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can you save it till we get
done?
MR. MULHERE: I can. It's just germane to that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's just try to go through -- I
understand. But let's --
MR. MULHERE: I'll write it down.
MR. PICKWORTH: If we can get Mr. Davis back, because
with the many iterations of the pre-'91 compliance and that, I
understand. And speaking for McDonald's, that's fine, so --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And you are?
MR. PICKWORTH: Don Pickworth. And I had commented on
Page 159
January 11, 2000
the pre-'91 compliance issue the other night, so that -- we're
okay with that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Dawn Jantsch will be followed by our final speaker?
MR. McNEES: Michael Boyd.
MS. JANTSCH.' Dawn Jantsch, Naples Area Chamber of
Commerce.
I applaud the board's efforts today in making this process
clear. It has been a pleasure listening to you today, because the
process this time has been very, very clear. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. BOYD: Good afternoon, my name is Michael Boyd. I'd
like to bore you with some pictures of some nice-looking signs,
because I'd like to ask some questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure. If you want to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The visualizer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's a great idea.
MR. BOYD: The only comment I have is on the six-inch top
and the two-foot base on each sign that you're requiring, I'd like
to delete that, and I'd like to let us have some leeway in
designing signs so we don't end up with everything looking the
same and everything in a big box.
My first question is on directory signs, are we required to
have a full cover at the bottom on a directory sign, or can we
have an open bottom such as this sign? This is Crossroads
Market in front of the Vineyards on Pine Ridge Road. It's a large
structure. It has a finished top on it that's probably six to eight
inches, but it does not have a finished base on it. So under the
proposed changes, this sign would no longer be legal. But I don't
think anybody can deny that it's a good-looking sign.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, under the proposed
changes, it would not have to be altered or moved, though,
unless it was damaged by a hurricane. MR. BOYD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the only difference that
would be required, I think, is that there at the very bottom where
you've got trees or bushes or something in between, it would
Page 160
January 11, 2000
have some kind of concrete, something besides the trees.
MR. BOYD: Okay. Well, my question is, is we haven't
covered the design of a directory sign, per se, in the code. I
don't want to get down the road and -- it's going to come up right
away.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MR. BOYD: Next picture.
Again, this is a freestanding monument sign. It's got a
finished base, but it does not have a finished top on it. But I
don't think anybody can deny that it's not a good-looking sign.
And, you know, once again, why should we be required to add a
top just to add a top? It seems like, you know, we're getting
cookie cutter. You know, everything is going to look the same. I
don't think that's what Naples wants.
This is a large directory sign, once again, at Bed, Bath, and
Beyond Plaza. It doesn't have a base. It will be able to remain
because it was rebuilt probably three years ago. Chahram?
Another directory sign again. Courthouse Shadows across
the street. It was recently rebuilt. It's 144 square feet. The only
thing it wouldn't conform with with the present code is it is
25-foot tall. But again, it has an opening at the bottom, which on
that particular property maybe wanted to allow you to see traffic
coming, to make that right-hand turn.
This is the Collier Park of Commerce. This sign is a
concrete block structure. It does not have a cap on it and it
does not have a two-foot finished base. But I don't think anybody
can deny it's not a good-looking sign.
This is First South Bank up on the North Trail. Again, it
doesn't have a top. I guess the base you could consider maybe
that is finished.
This is Immokalee Health Park, in Immokalee. Chahram told
me he would consider this to be a finished top, although some
people may not consider it to be, and it does not have a two-foot
base at the bottom.
This is Gulfshore Insurance, on Goodlette Road. You know,
this sign has exposed posts. We've got gold balls on the top.
Page 161
January 11, 2000
That's got a radius top, it doesn't have a finished top. It's open
at the bottom. But, I don't think anybody can deny that, you
know, letting us design something like this, it's a good-looking
sign. It goes with the pillars on the front of the building, and, you
know, I think it's rather attractive.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And it's neatly landscaped.
MR. BOYD: Right, correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's shrubbery on the bottom.
MR. BOYD: This is a sign up on the North Trail which
doesn't have a two-foot finished base. And quite frankly, a
two-foot finished base on this small of a sign is going to be
overblown. It will have the base up in the copy area.
This is Manor Care. Doesn't have a finished top and does
not have a finished base, but I think it's still an attractive sign.
Fidelity Investments. It's got a finished top, although the
top is only three inches. Does not have a finished base. But in
the scale of the sign, I don't think -- I think six inches would be
overblown.
This is Gulf Coast National Bank. Again, this is not a true
monument sign. We could fill in the bottom to make it a
monument type sign, but I don't think it looks bad the way it is.
This sign does not have a finished top, and I don't think that
a finished top would look good on it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Need to you wrap up.
MR. BOYD: Yeah. The only thing I ask is that you don't tie
our hands with design. You know, that's not Naples. Naples
doesn't want everything to look the same. I just can't believe
that they want every sign to look the same.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is just an observation here. I
think from what we've discussed today that we've got pretty
much a unanimous thought in terms of the signs before 1991.
What I would like to propose is that with the help of Mr.
Boyd and Mike Davis in the business community, they sit down,
they take a look at some of these signs and then come back to
us with something that might be acceptable as far as sign code
changes.
Page162
January 11, 2000
I have to tell you, Michael, I haven't seen anything here that
I would say is ugly. I think whether you did them or whoever did
them, I don't know who did them, I don't care who did them, but I
think for the most part they're pretty attractive. And they
certainly aren't the whole ugly pole, okay? I mean, they're not
that kind of a sign.
But I would like to see -- because I certainly don't have that
expertise. But I would like to see a bunch of you sit down,
whether -- you know, and whether we select this group or
whatever, but to come back in two or three weeks or a month
and make some suggestions, based on what we have seen here
today, and come up with something that's meets --
MR. BOYD: I'd be more than willing to do that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's my thought and that's
really where I -- if I'm going to support this, that's where I'm
going to go.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may, most of the pictures you saw,
they were monument signs. He didn't show you any pole signs.
So he's basically proven our point that monument signs are
better looking than pole signs. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question for staff about
the -- the -- most of the photographs that we've seen, I
understand the point about maybe we don't need to have the
finished top and the certain sized finished bottom; I don't know.
But except for that one point, all of the signs that he showed us
would comply with the current code except a few of them, as he
pointed out, were too tall.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct, with the proposed sign.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you liked what he showed
us, then you would support the code as proposed with the
change that would allow creativity. And I think we addressed
that in these points here, that with regard to architectural design
and otherwise, you could be creative with regard to the finished
top and the finished bottom of the signage.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Ill may, Page I of my executive
summary --
Page 163
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I knew I read it somewhere.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- the long executive summary, it talks
about the architectural design criteria. They are minimal. And
we are proposing to reduce them, if they can give us a sign that
shows they have taken some of the architectural design
elements of the building and incorporated them into the sign.
Those criteria can be lessened.
However, we are proposing that in no case shall we be able
to approve any sign taller than what's required or larger than
what's required. However, all others may be reduced or
removed, provided that they prove that they have a sign that's
architecturally finished and it has some of the architectural
elements of the building.
Bear in mind that some of the buildings are real old. And we
don't want new signs to look like those old buildings. We are
talking about newer buildings that have nice architectural finish.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what I think has been
pointed out here to us is that you asked, Mr. Chairman, whether
or not there were items that we discussed that were left off the
12-point laundry list, and I think that's one of them. We did
discuss that, as Chahram included in his list, architectural
design could be incorporated and eliminate the strict
requirements for the size of the foot and the size of the top.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: At the top of Page 12 of my executive
summary, I'm explaining that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I would propose we add that
to the 12-point list.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have a problem with that.
But remember today, we were looking at a laundry list to develop
the framework to take care of the wordology and specifics that
people are concerned about. I don't see anything on this list that
would take away creativity or ingenuity or any of those things.
And that's not what the purpose was today. Today was to
give the framework, to sit down and get the inputs from the Mike
Davises and the Boyds from the business community, to make
sure we end up with the wordology that fits these 12 areas.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, let's clar--
Page 164
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So what's the objection?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's clarify. Mr. Davis, I
appreciate you're there, but you've had your five minutes, unless
there's a question from the board --
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: I came up to answer Mr. Mulhere's
question at the end, as I was asked.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can we have him answer that
question?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the question?
MR. MULHERE: I forgot. No, I didn't, I'm sorry.
The one question I had, it wasn't clear when Mr. Davis spoke
that he understood that as far as I understood the board's
direction was pre-'91, the sign meets the '91 code, no problem. If
it does not, then it's subject to a three-year amortization
schedule. That's what you told me, and I wasn't sure if --
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: That was certainly my
understanding, and I think goes right along with it. And -- I'm
sorry, Mike Davis for the record.
And the solution to the one glitch you were just given is
make it 50 percent instead of 100 percent and it solves your
problem. That way you can do 25 on each side, leave 50 percent
in the center for the look-through, and it addresses the concerns
Mr. Boyd just demonstrated to you. And you don't need the
architectural standards added, you've got them on the sheet
right here, as Mr. Boyd pointed out by his photographs.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The -- I've got to disagree with
what I think the intent of Commissioner Berry's suggestion was,
and that was that we still set this aside and let the industry go
look at it. What we've had -- this is the third time we've had
discussions on it over the last couple of months. I know
Commissioner Carter has been working on it for eight months,
and it's going to come back in another two weeks in ordinance
form.
And the intent we said last Wednesday night was fairly
clear, and that was to put this list together so that everyone's
working from the same page as we go to the final public hearing.
So I think in those two weeks they'll have the opportunity to
Page 165
January 11, 2000
do that, Barb. I don't know that it needs to be formal from us.
But they should be able to go through -- that was the intent of the
list, to go through and say wait a minute, this idea is bad, this
idea is good.
But let's go ahead and try to formalize the list. And if you
want to add that one item in, that's fine by me. Otherwise, let's
move ahead with this.
Is there a motion on the list?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move that we adopt the 12
items as listed, which would include the 100 percent coverage,
but adding the language that was in Dr. Badamtchian's memo
regarding architectural features.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm just not comfortable with that
100 percent coverage. It's just you're going to end up with the
county looking like a cemetery with old graveyard stones
sticking up. Give them a little freedom. You've got to admit, the
signs that you saw in those pictures are not objectionable at all
in most cases.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately, that's probably
not representative of all signs in Collier County, though. That's
representative of the best, most attractive. But not everyone
meets that. That momentarily goes to that standard.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: True enough, but if they go to 50
percent coverage, they're going to meet it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we don't have four votes,
we can't go anywhere. So I'll amend my motion to go with 50
percent coverage.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will go along with that as a
second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we need four votes?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not for this today.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You don't need it for this, but you
Page 166
January 11, 2000
will need it--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All you're doing's okaying this
grocery list today. You can do it with three.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but what's the point?
MR. WEIGEL: You're attempting to give direction, knowing
that you'll have the four votes later down the line.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's true, yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'd rather have the four
votes, go down the line with everybody --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- have four votes comfortable
with the 12 items.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, I think we're all clear
then, that it sounds as though the motion has been amended to
consider the 50 percent instead of the 100 percent at the base.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Otherwise, exactly as the 12
items are listed.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Plus the architectural design criteria
you said?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' No. They took it out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of that motion,
please state aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That would be a 4-1 vote with
Commissioner Berry.
Item #8A4
REPORT ON DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCREASED
PROACTIVE SIGN ENFORCEMENT AND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
IMPLEMENT OUTLINED NEEDS -APPROVED
Page167
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then Mr. Chairman, it's probably
appropriate at this time to make a motion to un-table 8(A)(4).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 8(A)(4) is back on the table.
We'll vote on that. Anybody object to taking that off at this time?
Great, 8(A)(4) is back.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What was that item?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was the item that Michelle
Arnold -- how many people do you need, Michelle? You just tell
us and we'll say no, sir.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
enforcement director.
The proposal that's before you is two code enforcement
officers and one customer service agent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And does that match -- is that
still your proposal, considering the policy we just adopted?
MS. ARNOLD: If I understand it correctly, with respect to
the amortization, the proposal was a developed thinking
three-year for pre-'91 signs, and 10 years for post-'91 signs. And
what you've adopted is just a slight variation, where the signs
after 1991 we will allow to remain provided -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Permanently.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, permanently, you know, provided they
don't make alteration exceeding 50 percent of the value.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As long as they're permitted.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, yes. We are always dealing with legal
signs. Those illegal signs without permits have to go. There's no
time period there, right?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, any sign that was
built before '91, as long as it meets the '91 sign code, also fits
that category.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct. If they can come into compliance
with the '91 standards with a permit, then they are permitted to
stay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You've got it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Taking all that into
Page 168
January 11, 2000
consideration, are the three bodies that you requested adequate,
or necessary?
MS. ARNOLD: I think they will definitely be necessary. It's
my best guess that they're adequate.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Is there a motion from the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any discussion -- any public
speakers on this item, other than Mr. Weigel? Mr. Weigel, you have a comment on this.
MR. WEIGEL: I just want to make sure I was clear with Ms.
Arnold in regard to pre-'91 signs that meet the '91 standards are
okay. Pre-'91 signs that don't meet the '91 standards need to be
brought up to which standard? MS. ARNOLD: 2000.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The new standard.
MR. McNEES: The new standard.
MR. WEIGEL: That's what I thought.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any other questions?
We're going to handle those outside of this forum, because the
only item before us right now is the new personnel.
Motion and a second. All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody who -- I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Go ahead. I'll vote against it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you have a comment, I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, no, I do. I just wanted to
know, and how are we going to deal with this when we hit the
budget session then? I mean, when is this in effect, Tim? That's
all I'm asking. That's what I wanted to ask. Is it now or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Today.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Today.
MS. ARNOLD: It's now.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- is it today?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, because what you all directed me to do
is identify what my needs are today based on a proactive
Page 169
January 11, 2000
approach to enforcement of signs, rather than a reactive
approach. Yes, there's a budget amendment that's proposed
along with this executive summary.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assumed that if for some odd
reason the signs aren't alone enough to keep these people busy,
that a proactive code enforcement effort certainly will.
MS. ARNOLD: Definitely. With the budget --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I apologize.
MS. ARNOLD: With the budget hearings, however, I'm
expected to bring you back a more comprehensive approach of
how we do business.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I will support this from the
standpoint of getting signs into compliance, because I think that
that is important. I -- my big concern on this whole sign
ordinance is where we go from there.
And I am not opposed to a higher standard. I am opposed to
the process that we have gone through to get to that higher
standard. Because it comes down to imposition of government,
which I have a little struggle with in this particular situation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. And I apologize for
cutting off the debate too soon.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The vote. All those in favor,
please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're going to take about a
five-minute break for the court reporter, and then I suspect we've
got some folks here for our next item, which will be 13(A)(1). Be
back in five minutes.
(Recess.)
Item #13A1
PETITION A-99-02 JEFFREY S. KANNENSOHN, ESQ. OF PORTER,
Page 170
January 11, 2000
WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, REPRESENTING EUGENE C.
THRUSHMAN, REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION (I-
99-03) CONCERNING THE INSTALLATION OF FENCING WITHIN A
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN
NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS PUD, TRACTS E AND F AND LOT 55.
- DENIED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, and welcome back.
That takes us to the Board of Zoning Appeals section, which
will be 13(A)(1), Petition A-99-02.
Mr. Weigel, do we need to swear people in on this item?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: I think it's best advice.
over
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
here.
Ventriloquist.
It's amazing.
I asked over here, I got a yes
Anybody who wants to participate in the discussion on this
next item, Petition A-99-02, if you'd please stand, raise your right
hand and be sworn. That includes anybody from the public who
may decide to get up during public comment.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's says there's no disclosure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not on this one.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had contact on this item.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've had contact.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So have I.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As have I. For public disclosure
reasons --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Commissioner Mac'Kie
apparently is the only one who has not had contact from
someone.
Mr. Mulhere, you want to explain this one to us?
Page 171
January 11, 2000
MR. MULHERE: I think I can do that pretty quickly and
concisely.
Jeff Kannensohn is representing the property owner, Eugene
Thrushman. His request -- he's appealing an interpretation of the
planning director with respect to the ability to place a fence
within a conservation easement or several conservation
easements in the North Shore Lakes Villas PUD.
On the visualizer here, I have a -- two portions of a plat
which depict in red the location of the fence. It circumnavigates
a cul-de-sac here and it goes all the way around this Tract F,
which is a conservation tract.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't want to cause any
confusion, but doesn't the PUD specifically prohibit fencing in
that area?
MR. MULHERE: Well, the PUD does not specifically prohibit
it. However, the -- there is language on the plat that does --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
MR. MULHERE: -- specifically prohibit placement of a fence
within those easements.
But there is -- your question is actually on target, because
there is language within the PUD that requires that those
conservation tracts be dedicated to two entities; one in Collier
County with no responsibility for maintenance, and two, all of the
fee simple property owners in the PUD. And they enjoy the
responsibility to maintain those conservation easements, but
with the erection of this fence cannot access those conservation
easements.
And we think that's inconsistent with the intent of the
board, when you approve a conservation easement, especially
when a conservation easement goes towards satisfying
requirements for open space and native preservation. In this
case, this conservation easement goes to satisfying both of
those requirements.
So while technically there's no language in the PUD that
says they cannot erect a fence, there is language within the
dedication of the plat, and it is the opinion of staff that even
without that language, the -- there never was an intent to erect a
Page 172
January 11, 2000
fence. And by doing so, eliminate the fee simple owners within
the PUD access to that conservation easement.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And the question today is
whether or not we should overturn your administrative opinion.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. And I do want to add one
other item. -There is an enforcement case outstanding, the
resolution of which has been held in abeyance pending the
outcome of this interpretation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Mulhere?
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question for Mr. Weigel, or
whoever is the lawyer on this deal.
Is -- the legal standard by which we measure whether or not
we overturn Mr. Mulhere's opinion is what?
MR. WEIGEL: I was just reviewing that. The -- I think the
legal standard is -- this is quasi-judicial, but I think that the legal
standard is one where if you by a majority vote disagree, that
vote is the vote that's of record.
And it's not a question of beyond a reasonable doubt, which
is a criminal standard. It is just, do you believe that the opinion
is right or wrong, up or down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just substantial competent
evidence, something along those lines?
MR. WEIGEL: Along those lines, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So I guess my question is, is his
position legally defensible?
MR. WEIGEL: Is whose position?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Mulhere's.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I would state as attorney that I think it is
legally defensible. But I think that before you today, you need to
hear all of the record that will be created and then make your
determination at that point in time. But yes, his position is
legally defensible.
Does that mean that it wins in court? My opinion would be --
I have an opinion, but I don't think it's appropriate to tell you now
to color yours.
Page 173
January I t, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Let's hear from the
petitioner. Mr. Kannensohn.
MR. KANNENSOHN: Good morning. For the record, my
name is Jeff Kannensohn. I'm representing the petitioner, Mr.
Eugene Thrushman, who, as Mr. Mulhere indicated, is seeking a
review of his interpretation of a prior denial for a permit for a
chain-link fence located on the western boundary of the
residential property that Mr. Thrushman owns in the North Shore
Lake Villas subdivision.
I have previously submitted a detailed memorandum and
affidavit of Mr. Thrushman, along with a survey showing where
the fence is located. And so I would -- but I would also like to --
for the record to preserve an appeal from this hearing today.
I ask that additional -- original or certified documents that I
delivered to the reporter, and they are the appellate
memorandum, affidavit of Eugene Thrushman, a survey, a
certified copy of the plat of the development, certified copy of
the PUD ordinance, copy of the planning services director's letter
dated July 29, 1999, and a certified copy of the amended and
restated declaration of covenants. I asked that they be admitted
into the record so that we have a clear set of documents that the
court can rely upon.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Consider it done.
MR. KANNENSOHN: Thank you.
Rather than belabor all the points that are in my
memorandum that I believe are in your package, I would just like
to briefly review the facts for the record.
Mr. Thrushman applied for approval of the developed North
Shore Lakes Villas as a 70-unit single-family development in
1997. The county required a reduction in density to 54 villas in
one single-family estate, pursuant to the PUD Ordinance No.
99.64.
The PUD ordinance required Mr. Thrushman to create a
conservation easement on the eastern portion of the
development, which is identified as Tracts E and F on the plat,
that are contiguous to the single-family estate lot, which is now
identified as Lot 55.
Page 174
January 11, 2000
It was always Mr. Thrushman's intent that Lot 55 and Tracts
E and F be owned by the same person, subject of course to the
conservation easement.
The plat was filed in March of 1997, and contained the
dedications in Tracts E and F as conservation easements.
Prior to the sale of the villas in the development, an
amended and restated declaration of covenants was filed in the
public records that gave notice that Lot 55 and Tracts E and F
would be owned by the same person.
Mr. Thrushman retained fencing contractors in May of 1997
to install the chain-link fence around the boundaries of Tracts E
and F and also Lot 55. He mistakenly thought the contractors
had obtained permits from the county, but they apparently had
not.
In 1999, March of 1999, Mr. Thrushman received a code
enforcement violation notice regarding the fences. Thereafter,
he applied for a permit to install the fences, and permits were
issued by the county for the fences that are located on the
northeast and on the south boundaries of the property, but they
were denied as to the portions on the west boundary in the
cul-de-sac areas.
And the basis for that denial was that the fences were
within the conservation easement and, therefore, violated the
plat restriction.
Mr. Thrushman then asked the planning services director to
review the situation and issue a formal position letter under Land
Development Code Section 1.63, which he did, and issued a
letter on July 29, denying the appeal.
And thereafter, Mr. Thrushman has filed this appeal in a
timely manner under Section 166 of the Land Development Code.
Now, the planning services director in his letter takes two
basic positions. The first one is that the fence is not allowed
under the -- an absolute reading of the restriction; that the word
"within" is an absolute restriction allowing -- disallowing a
number of uses of the property, including fences within the
boundaries.
And then secondly, Mr. Mulhere indicates that even if the
Page 175
January 11, 2000
fence was not within the conservation area, or were to be placed
outside the conservation area, that under the interpretation of
the Land Development Code and the PUD ordinance and the plat,
there is a public right of access to the conservation parcel that
would be impeded by the location of the fence.
As to the first position, Mr. Thrushman believes that the
restriction contained in the plat is not an absolute restriction,
but needs to be read in the context of the intended fence use.
I would particularly point the board to the language at the
end of the plat dedication, where it discusses activities that are
prohibited within the conservation areas. And it says that it
prohibits fences and any other activities detrimental to the
drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control or
fish or wildlife habitat conservation or preservation.
We believe that this language, when taken in context with
what the purpose of this conservation easement was established
for, would require the planning services director to make a
finding that the fence located on the boundary somehow is
detrimental to the purpose of establishing this drainage
easement, or the conservation easement in the first place.
As I indicated before, only a small portion of the fence on
the west boundary is located actually within the boundary of
Tracts E and F only by a few inches, or a foot at most.
The planning services director has made found no finding
that the location of this fence would in any way adversely
interfere with the conservation easement, or would damage the
habitat, wildlife or otherwise interfere with the flood or erosion
control.
Since the conservation parcel is comprised of unimproved
Florida natural habitat that is not to be disturbed under the terms
of the ordinance, the existing fence clearly can assert to only
promote the original purpose of the conservation easement by
preventing damage to the habitat by limiting access to -- by
persons traversing onto the parcel that have no reason to do so.
It is important to note that Mr. Thrushman's position on this
fence prohibition that is not absolute is supported by the
county's own agreement to issue a permit to the fences located
Page 176
January 11, 2000
on the east, west -- east, north and the south side. There is no
basis for a distinction between those fences and the fences on
the west side, with the exception that the fences on the west do
interfere with access to property owners onto the parcel.
Which leads to the planning services director's second basis
and what I believe is the controlling reason why we have a
denial; and that is that the interpretation of the ordinance, which
would seem to indicate a position that the general property
owners in the development have a right of access implied.
The planning services director has, I believe, gone too far in
making this assertion. And I'll quote from his letter, Page 2. He
says: "The intent is that the conservation/preserve areas be
recorded as spaces accessible to all fee simple owners within
the PUD. Restricting access by fee simple owners within this
PUD to the conservation/preserve area, with a fence, is
contradictory to the intent of these provisions of the PUD and the
LDC."
Mr. Thrushman would suggest a clear -- a close reading of
the PUD ordinance and the plat can find no express or implied
easement or grant of easement or right of access to any property
owners within the development.
Mr. Thrushman does acknowledge that the homeowners'
association has a limited right of access in order to maintain the
conservation parcel. And in fact there is a three-foot gated fence
located on the west parcel that does allow for access by the
homeowners' association, if they need to access the property to
maintain it.
This limited right of access, however, should not be
confused as granting to the general population the right to
traverse the conservation parcel.
The purpose of the parcel is distinguished from the stated
purpose of other common areas set aside within the
development, such as a recreation area and a lake area that
clearly contemplate the need for the individual property owners
to have access to those parcels.
Under Section 5 of the PUD ordinance, the purpose of the
conservation easement is to protect the native vegetation, while
Page 177
January 1 t, 2000
under Section 4 of the PUD ordinance the remaining common
areas set-aside property is to provide lake, open space and
recreational facilities. There is no need or requirement for
access by individual property owners to the conservation parcel
set forth in the PUD ordinance or plat, nor can one be implied
under the situation.
In summary then, Mr. Thrushman believes that he should be
entitled to a permit for the fence, since it does not, as located,
violate the plat restrictions, nor does it legally interfere with any
legally cognizable access rights to the conservation parcel. And
therefore, requests this board to find -- to rule that the findings of
the planning services director were incorrect. Thank you for
your consideration.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions for the
petitioner? Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Mr. Kannensohn, the sign is
-- not the sign. Still back on the sign. Excuse me, the fence is
still --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There's no signs there, John.
You are all right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The fence is up and existing --
MR. KANNENSOHN: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is that correct?
MR. KANNENSOHN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I thought I heard you say earlier
in your comments that that portion of that fence permit was
denied.
MR. KANNENSOHN: On the west side.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So the fence was put up without a
permit.
MR. KANNENSOHN: The fence around the whole property
was put up without a permit by mistake. The contract -- We
thought the contractor had issued to obtain a permit, and he did
not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Public questions for the
petitioner?
Page t78
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What's the purpose of having the
fence?
MR. KANNENSOHN: A couple of purposes. One is to provide
security, provide protection from people intruding into an area
which is not improved. There's snakes, there's holes, there's all
sorts of possible problems. You could have children going into
the area. And also basically to maintain a unified ownership to
the property owner.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can understand on the outward
boundary where you might want a fence for the first reason, to
keep people out of there. But on the other side? I'm really not
clear as to that purpose that you say to keep children out of
there and to keep snakes in? I don't think a fence will keep a
snake in or out.
MR. KANNENSOHN: No, I was suggesting, Commissioner,
that that --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I mean, it just -- if it's an open
area, first of all, who's going to go in there? If it's as wild as I'm
led to believe, who's going to go in there? You say for
maintenance purposes.
MR. KANNENSOHN: Well, there is an obligation to remove
non-native habitat if it goes in there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So it's if people could walk
their dogs in there, they could walk in there and they could do all
those kinds of things? But Mr. Thrushman doesn't want anybody
to walk in there.
MR. KANNENSOHN: No. And that's the point of-- he
understood when he was dedicating the conservation tract that
it was to be maintained as a natural habitat. He was not
intending it to be open to -- to be used as a park or a walking
area for residents in the development.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a couple of
questions to make sure I understand this clearly. The plat was
recorded -- well, it was actually a re-plat. The plat was recorded
in February of 19977
MR. KANNENSOHN: I believe it was in March of '97, I
believe.
Page 179
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: March of '97.
And the plat reads as follows: Tract C, Tract CC, Tract E
and F -- which are the ones we're talking about here, right, E and
F?
MR. KANNENSOHN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Tract E and F.
-- and all conservation easements shall be the perpetual
responsibility of North Shore Lake Villa's homeowners'
association and may in no way be altered from a natural state.
Activities prohibited within the conservation areas include
but are not limited to construction or placing soil or other
substances such as trash; removal or destruction of trees,
shrubs or other vegetation, with the exception of exotics;
excavation, dredging, or removal of soil material; diking or
fencing; and any other activities detrimental to drainage, flood
control, water conservation, erosion control and so on.
When you referenced this, you said fencing or any other
activities, as though they were connected. And they are very
clearly separated -- if you go back to your grammar classes from
years ago -- by that semicolon. And that is one of several things
that is clearly prohibited.
So I'm wondering, if a plat passes in March of '97 and says
specifically that these activities prohibited include diking or
fencing, while in May of 1970 started to install a fence. When it
could not be clearer in the plat that it is prohibited activity, you
can't put it in.
MR. KANNENSOHN: Well, I believe my client did not realize
that there was a restriction. I mean, he was -- when he
developed the property, it's always been his intention to put the
fence up. He put it up at or prior to the time when any closings
occurred. It may have been one or two closings. So it was
always his intention. It was not like he was trying to hide it from
anybody.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand.
MR. KANNENSOHN: I'm saying it was an innocent mistake
on his part in terms of putting it up and not realizing this
restriction is in there.
Page180
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I think the point you just
made is the one that I'm trying to make, and that is, it was a
mistake.
MR. KANNENSOHN: Right. But the point is --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That it's -- no, the point is that
it's not allowed. The plat very clearly says prohibited fencing,
and that he put it up anyway. Mistake or otherwise, ignorance of
the law or of his own requirements is not an excuse and it was
indeed a mistake, it was an error, and it is prohibited. Couldn't
be clearer.
MR. KANNENSOHN: But I would like to make one point, is --
the addition point is we would -- we had made an offer that if we
needed to, in order to make this a conforming fence, we could
move it outside the boundaries of the conservation area.
The second half of the position from Mr. Mulhere would
indicate we couldn't even do that, because -- and that would get
around the "within" restriction, but then we would have a public
access issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure it even says within,
but -- do we have public speakers on this item?
MR. McNEES: We do. Your first is James Pozza, followed by
Wayne Libhart.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many do we have?
MR. McNEES: You have five.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. McNEES: I feel compelled to mention that only four
people were sworn in, so --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, I'll ask each one of you
individually -- or was one of you who are speaking was not
sworn? Let's swear each one individually then to make sure.
Would you state your name? And then she'll swear you in.
MR. POZZA: My name is James Pozza, homeowner at North
Shore Lake Villas. Pozza is spelled P-O-Z-Z-A. (Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. POZZA: My testimony -- thank you, commissioners, for
hearing us today. My testimony will be very short, because in the
due diligence of time, I'm going to defer my -- my -- whatever I
Page 181
January 11, 2000
have to say to Mr. Libhart. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't work that way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Everybody gets five minutes,
whether you defer or not. We can't pile it up.
MR. POZZA: I reserve the right to recall.
MR. KANNENSOHN: Particularly if the next one is a lawyer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just hang on just for a second.
Just so you're clear, there is no right of recall. You get a
five-minute window, you can use it or not. You can't pass it to
other people and you can't come back and use up what you
didn't.
Let's go ahead and swear -- were you sworn before? Did you
stand and swear?
MR. LIBHART: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, good enough.
MR. LIBHART: First of all, Wayne Libhart. I'm a homeowner
with my boss here at North Shore Lake. We were one of the first
to buy. And if I get a little antsy here, calm me down, because so
many things that Mr. Kannensohn said to you just a little while
ago is contrary to my ancient memory, that it just disturbs me
terribly.
And it may be that I also have a problem with him personally
on a legal matter. He gave us an opinion of title that we received
in the mail a month after we closed, seven days after this
ordinance was amended.
It wasn't, as he said, first -- it didn't first come before you on
the date he said. I wrote the county administrator back in -- on
January 16th, 1999. And attached to that letter were some 30 of
our 50 homeowners agreeing to it. And I don't want to go over
that, but it gave you the entire history.
The first ordinance that came before you was sometime in
October. And I'm unclear when the change took place. October,
'95, I believe. There's a memorandum in the file from John
Holesworth (phonetic) to Mr. Nino, attempting to explain some of
the problems that were presented.
And if you have reference to that, you'll see that what
happened was when the first PUD was approved, they had to be
Page182
January 11, 2000
-- shortly thereafter, there had to be an amendment, because one
of the houses was located in a right-of-way. And that was
presented to you. You approved it summarily because it needed
to be done. And it was in that time frame that this E and F
appeared.
If we can --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Get back to the microphone, sir.
MR. LIBHART: If you can show them the -- on the screen.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just so you know, we --
actually, this records, and she also can't hear if you're not on the
mike. So if you wander away, just pause long enough to get back
to the microphone.
MR. LIBHART: Okay, fine.
When we bought, this area that we're talking about that has
been fenced was promised to us as being -- to be eventually
owned by the homeowners' association. And the plot plan
attached the original presentation, when they asked to change
from agricultural to a PUD showed that area as Area J. The
brackets that spelled out the amount of acreage on each one of
them showed Area J as three acres.
When the change took place, that theoretically takes care of
this building that was in the right-of-way, all of a sudden J
became F.
We went down to the planning department -- and by the way,
all of us have great admiration for your planning department. Mr.
Nino has been just excellent in helping us. They couldn't find
that -- the change. And it has never to this day been found.
Because we wanted to see who initialed this F over into a J, and
we never found out. But they initialed that F over into a J, but
they never changed the bracket. J still appears there, three
acres, and -- but there isn't any three acres on the final PUD
approval that Mr. Thrushman's lawyer has pointed out to you.
So this goes back much before. When we first started to
buy, we waited 13, 14 months after, promised to have our house
built in three months, we promptly moved in 13 months
afterwards, 1,200 -- $12,000 worth of rentals over that winter
because we sold our other place in Collier County. All those
Page 183
January 11, 2000
problems were created by promises from Mr. Thrushman. And all
of us here -- thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Our next speaker?
MR. McNEES: Lynn Thomas, followed by Sandra Davis.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Davis, were you sworn?
MS. DAVIS: Yes, I was sworn.
I'm Sandra Davis. I'm a homeowner in North Shore Lake
Villas. And I am here to primarily to ask the County
Commissioners here to not accept this appeal from Gene
Thrushman because I believe when an area is designated to be a
conservation area, that's what it should be. It should not be
fenced off for any reason. Whether or not he wants to protect
little children from going in there, we should still have access to
it some way. And I believe his attorney said there's a gate with
access. However, that gate has a security code which we do not
have access to.
And also, I believe Mr. Thrushman is paying a very limited
amount of tax on this land because it is called a conservation
area. And in that land, he has fenced in around his house. So
basically he's getting all this acreage for a nominal fee.
I feel as a homeowner in Collier County that is very unfair,
and I ask you to not grant this appeal to Mr. Thrushman. Thank
you·
MR. McNEES: You have Lynn Thomas, who's --
COMMISSIONER DAVIS: She's not here·
MR. McNEES: John Richardson is your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sir, were you sworn in as well?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, I was.
Thank you for this opportunity. I'm John Richardson, and
also a resident in North Shore Lake Villas. And this matter has
become like way too legal for'me to understand. Let me see
whether I can like cut through it all.
I still don't understand whether the conservation tracts are
the property of Mr. Thrushman or not. Can anybody answer that?
You know, is that his property?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. He owns the title to it.
MR. RICHARDSON: He can own --
Page t 84
January 11, 2000
MR. MULHERE: An easement is a granting of some right,
while the fee simple land, the land is owned still by a different
individual to whom the easement is dedicated.
So that easement to the conservation is dedicated to Collier
County and to the property owners' association, or the
homeowners' association for maintenance purposes, but he still
owns it.
MR. RICHARDSON: So he owns it but the rest of the
property owners are responsible to maintain it? MR. MULHERE: That is correct.
MR. RICHARDSON: That just doesn't sound right to me.
Because when you look at the property, this is his estate all
fenced in there, yet supposedly it's dedicated to us, it's our
conservation area, we're responsible to maintain it. We do not
have access to it, so I don't understand it.
So I guess I'm just here really expressing my feeling. I think
going to what Mr. Constantine said before, that fence was put up,
it was a mistake. No matter who owns it, the fence should not
be there, and maybe, you know, we could just leave it at that,
that that fence should not be there and the fence should be
taken down. So I support you if you, you know, are still thinking
that way. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Otherwise the net effect is that
this man will have a giant fenced in yard that it's your
responsibility to maintain. Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to uphold the director's
assessment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to deny the appeal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEI.: Thank you. Before you vote on that, there's
one thing I'd like to note for the record and for you to at least be
aware of to create your own record on this and that is that
Page 185
January 11, 2000
Attorney Kannensohn, on behalf of his client, listed quite a
number of documents or articles that were to be placed on the
record and were allowed on the record and went to the clerk.
I'm not sure, and I'd like the record to reflect whether you as
a board, both -- and individually or collectively, have reviewed all
of those things, or if in fact all that you have reviewed, other
than the spoken word heard at today's meeting, is that which is
published in the agenda packet that's before you in the normal
course of the agenda transmittals.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've certainly only reviewed
what's in the agenda packet and what's been presented verbally
this morning. I'm vaguely familiar obviously with the general
documents such as Land Development Code, comprehensive
plan, and otherwise. But other than that, my preparation for
today has been based on the agenda packet.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: As have I.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As myself.
MR. WEIGEL: The reason I bring this up is that as the
attorney indicated, there may be an appeal taken from this, and
all of the record may be part of what is considered on the appeal.
But I want the record to reflect what you have actually read and
had placed before you in your own consideration, not additional --
not necessarily additional materials that were placed with the
clerk but have not been discussed here today in detail, but are in
their entirety placed with the clerk.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Frankly, I think the entire
procedure today was designed for the purposes of an appeal --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- which is certainly your right.
MR. KANNENSOHN: May I clarify the record on that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
MR. KANNENSOHN: I believe there's only one document
that was not presented to the planning department, and that
would be the amended and restated declaration of covenants.
Although the documents were documents given to them, they
may or may not have been put in the package, but I've just put in
certified copies so that there would be no question about the
Page 186
January t 1, 2000
authenticity.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. KANNENSOHN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion from
Commissioner Norris and a second from Commissioner Mac'Kie
to deny the appeal.
I'm going to support the motion to deny the appeal for the
reasons I outlined in some detail earlier; and that is, it's fairly
clear that the use requested is prohibited in the plat.
And secondly that on the record, the attorney representing
the petitioner acknowledged that it was a mistake that the fence
went up in the first place. They've acknowledged there was an
error,
And so the only question I have, Mr. Mulhere, for
clarification purposes, he asked in response to my earlier
comments about setting something just outside the boundary
line of the conservation. I'm assuming that goes to the spirit and
the intent of what's written in the plat, but I'd like you to clarify
that for me.
MR. MULHERE: Well, it does. We haven't thoroughly
examined all the issues. But just generally I can tell you that
looking at the areas just outside of the conservation easement,
there are other easements, right-of-way easements and similar
types of easements, within which a fence, in order to place -- and
those are dedicated to other entities who have the controlling
ability to allow, you know, a fence. For example, Collier County.
And so they would have to go through that approval process of
requesting the ability to construct the fence outside of the
conservation easement. And I think given the history of this
project, it's not likely that that would occur, although that's an
option they would have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One other question. There are
other remedies possible to attempt, anyway, such as a re-plat
with that variance, or there are other -- not that it would
necessarily succeed, but just to be clear that -- MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- this isn't the only avenue
Page 187
January 11, 2000
going to the court system that the petitioner had. MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are other remedies that
may not be exhausted by this particular hearing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Other question. Does that mean
all fencing comes down or only the fencing in the internal part?
MR. MULHERE: I believe that all of the fencing within the
conservation easement must be removed.
There was some fencing that transversed the Lot 55,
whether it was the driveway or other portions of Lot 55, which is
-- over which there is no conservation easement. Certainly he
could put a fence completely around Lot 55 on his own property
where there is no easement, which would provide the same level
of protection but would not then constitute an estate type lot
that no one else could access that has a conservation easement
over it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. Well, I'm going to
support staff on this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that, let's--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to say one other
thing for the record, that this is one of those times when
developers who are so in the habit of platting property and
signing dedications, perhaps this developer mistakenly didn't
understand what the meaning was of the dedication language,
just to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he didn't
understand, perhaps he did.
But the point being the language in the dedication is so
clear that I don't see how there could be any confusion about
whether it's appropriate or not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That and The petitioner
acknowledged on the record that it was a mistake.
So I'm going to go ahead and call the question. All those in
favor of the motion to deny the appeal, state aye.
Anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you
all very much.
Page 188
January 11, 2000
Item #13A3
PETITION V-99-24, JACKIE RITTER OF PENBROS PRECISION
COURTS, INC., REPRESENTING LESLIE O'SULLIVAN,
REQUESTING A 39-FOOT, AFTER-THE-FACT, VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIRED 50-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 11 FEET
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 CARIBBEAN ROAD, FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, BLOCK A, PINE RIDGE - DENIED
13(A)(3), Petition V-99-24. Jackie Ritter, requesting an
after-the-fact variance from the required 50-foot setback to 11
feet.
All those who intend to participate in this public hearing,
please stand to be sworn.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services.
This is a request for an after-the-fact variance in the Pine
Ridge subdivision for a tennis court. You can see on the
visualizer that the lot in question is at the corner of Caribbean
and Ridge Drive. And the survey shows Caribbean at the bottom,
Ridge to the right. House guest (sic), house pool and a tennis
court in question. You can see 11 feet from the property line. It
was over 20 feet to the edge of pavement, but still what is in
question is from property line to the tennis court.
It's an unusual circumstance because the Land
Development Code requires a front -- oh, let me point out, too,
that because of the corner lot status, that this is also a front
yard; therefore, in the RSF-1 District it requires a 50-foot
setback. And the LDC does require a 50-foot setback for a tennis
court on a single-family home.
However, the Building Department does not require a
building permit for a tennis court. And I'll let the petitioner go
into this in more detail, but apparently the contractor thought the
homeowner was going to get the permit, and vice versa.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Is there a permit required?
MR. REISCHL: I'm sorry, there's a permit required for the
Page 189
January 11, 2000
fence. There's a 10-foot fence that goes around the tennis court
within a lot in RSF-I, that's one acre or more, which this is. You
can have up to a six-foot fence right on your property line. This
is a 10-foot fence.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And no permit for the tennis
court, but not having a permit requirement does not absolve you
of still following all the laws of--
MR. REISCHL: Of the LDC requirement, correct.
I have a photo from the petitioner, which is kind of glary. I
think you can see the oak tree. Here's the pool that you saw on
the survey. Here's the tennis court, based on the survey. And
she states that the reason that she reconfigured the tennis court
this way was to preserve the oak tree.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Wait a minute. Can we see
maybe the map of the whole property again? Because the pool
was actually -- all right. So that's --
MR. REISCHL: That oak tree was approximately --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How far is the distance between
the pool and the tennis court?
MR. REISCHL: Looks like approximately 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It doesn't appear to be 39 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It wouldn't solve the problem if it
abutted the pool.
MR. REISCHL: Right.
I have pictures that I took. From -- both of these pictures
are from Ridge Drive. And let me say as I show these pictures
that my recommendation was for approval. You can see the
landscaped area. There's a little decorative fence, and you can
sort of see a small line there as the top of the 10-foot fence.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, let me ask you, since
this is a corner lot, you have two front yards, you also have two
rear yards?
MR. REISCHL: Two side yards.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two side yards. What's a side
yard setback?
MR. REISCHL: 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does it meet the setback on that?
Page 190
January t t, 2000
MR. REISCHL: It does meet the side setback, yes.
So as I said, planning services staff recommended approval
based on the landscaping softening the effect of the fence. And
the fact as we brought up in the previous hearing that I did, that
setbacks are considerations of air and light circulation. The
petitioner basically could put a deck right up to the property line
and call it a deck, as long as it doesn't exceed 30 inches in
height. That would have been permitted. It doesn't absolve
them, however, because it is a tennis court. A tennis court does
require a setback. But those were considerations we looked at.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask you a question, Fred?
MR. REISCHL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When you look at -- I was
surprised by the staff's recommendation, frankly, because when
you look at the questions you have to ask yourself on Pages 6
and 7 of our staff report, some of these -- many of these
questions -- well, let me ask it this way: Is there like a threshold
number that if this thing fails one or two of the questions staff
will recommend denial? Or could the application fail every one
of these questions and you still recommend approval?
MR. REISCHL: If it failed every one, I don't think we would,
but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's within your discretion?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, let's go to that, because
there are a couple of these that I just don't agree with. Are there
special conditions and circumstances which do not result from
the action of the applicant --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it failed that one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- which is the subject of the
variance. You say yes, the existing vegetation, which they're
trying to retain. And yet even if that tree wasn't there, you'd have
to be in the swimming pool. And there's not 39 feet there, so
that's not a legitimate argument.
MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So that should be no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it fails A.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And you go down to C, there is
Page 191
January 11, 2000
no land related hardship. D, will the variance if granted be the
minimum variance that will make the possible reasonable use of
the land which promotes standards of health, safety and welfare,
and you say yes. I don't know that a tennis court is required to
have a reasonable use of this land.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's great it's in there, but from
a legal standpoint, that's not -- that should be no.
MR. REISCHL: Right. It's the minimum required. But you're
right, it doesn't necessarily meet a reasonable use of land.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And then, you know, you go to
F, will granting of this variance be in harmony with general intent
and purpose of the Land Development Code, and you
acknowledge no. The only thing maybe out of all of these is, you
know, are there natural conditions, and that's, I'm assuming, you
mean the roadway and the landscaping there. But other than
that, I don't think any of these meet the hurdle. And that's where
I'm having trouble with it.
It's a great-looking property, I understand that. But we can't
just arbitrarily say sure, okay, if it doesn't meet anything with the
LDC and we can't find a reason, a hardship.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to add to that, I -- there are
eight criteria, and I would agree with you that maybe it passes G
and H, that maybe it's consistent with the Growth Management
Plan, and maybe there are natural conditions or physically
induced conditions that ameliorate it. But of the eight, it fails six
by my count.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could we have the survey back
up, please?
MR. REISCHL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then there's the whole lighting
issue, which is a disturbance to the neighborhood. I mean, this
is the complaints that I've received.
So I have a lot of difficulty with this, Fred, I really do.
MR. REISCHL: That's true. And don't forget, we write the
staff report before it's advertised, so we don't hear any of the
public comment; therefore, I made a site visit during the day and
didn't even notice the lights.
Page 192
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And there may be reasons that
aren't outlined here. And with that, let's hear from the petitioner
and find out what they are.
MR. REISCHL: Let me also put on the record that the
planning commission voted to deny. And I can give you the
reasons, but it's in the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you know what the --
MR. REISCHL: -- executive summary.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- vote was, and, sure, what are
the --was it unanimous?
MR. REISCHL: It was unanimous.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And the reasons?
MR. REISCHL: The reasons were the contractor should have
known the setbacks. That was the stated record. Lots of things
were discussed. That's what was stated.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Let's hear from the
petitioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you the property owner or
the contractor?
MS. RITTER: I'm the contractor. My name is Jackie Ritter.
I'd like to say that a mistake has been made here and that's
why we're applying for this variance. The side setback normally
would be 30 feet. Just not having the knowledge of it being a
corner lot requiring the 50 feet was a mistake. I'd like to say
that I -- we've been in business for six years. I do have my
license in Collier County and Lee County. We have pulled
numerous permits throughout both counties.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a quick question? If
you knew 30 feet, I mean, let's -- it's 50 feet. But if you thought it
was 30 feet, how come you still built it 11 feet?
MS. RITTER: 30 feet from the edge of the road. So I had --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: From the right-of-way.
MS. RITTER: From the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. And it's only 11 feet from
the right-of-way.
MS. RITTER: I went 30 feet from the edge of the pavement.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Surely you understand if you're
Page 193
January 11, 2000
a contractor in Collier County that the edge of the pavement isn't
necessarily the edge of the right-of-way.
MS. RITTER: Right, I didn't realize the fact of the
right-of-way.
Like I said, it is an oversight on my part. And as far as the
light issue, the owner has offered to purchase glare shields so
none of the neighborhoods in the surrounding areas will be
affected by the lights if she were to use the court in the evening.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' I just have to say it seems like
the financial hardship here unfortunately is going to be yours,
that you're going to have to take this court out and put in a free
court for her in a way that complies with the law.
MS. RITTER: Right, and that's what I -- you know, I pointed
out the fact I have done numerous courts in both counties and
this is the first time that I ever had to apply for a variance or
anything to this effect.
Along with the oak tree that's between the pool and the
court, there are numerous pine trees, too, around the court that
are 40 to 50 feet tall and other natural vegetation, which the
owner was -- her main objective here was to save as much
vegetation as she could. So we squeezed the court in as best as
we could. And thinking that I had the right-of-way covered as far
as the 30 feet, normal side setbacks, not realizing a change from
the corner lot.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions for the
contractor?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ms. Ritter, I know you tried to
reach me to have a discussion. I tried to call you back, but your
answering machine does not work, so I therefore could not leave
a message. Just wanted to let you know that I didn't ignore you.
MS. RITTER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other speakers? I know that
we had four or five people stand up.
MS. RITTER: I believe the owner would like to speak, and
her representative.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure, we'll see if there are -- is
the owner the next one in line?
Page 194
January 1t, 2000
MR. McNEES: I can't say. I have a Mimi Watson and Tyrone
Medina. We had a representative, an attorney representing the
property owner.
MS. MILLER: I'm the attorney for the homeowner, and this is
the homeowner. We would all like to get to go first.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure, that's fine. Go ahead.
The petitioner--
MS. MILLER: Mrs. Sullivan is going to go next, but we'll all
be very quick.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's -- take your time. Make
sure you get whatever you need to on the record.
MS. O'SULLIVAN: Hi, good afternoon. I'm Leslie O'Sullivan,
the homeowner.
And as we've been talking about here today, this whole
issue is a mistake. It was an error that never should have
happened, but it did and so now we're here trying to resolve it
and to see what we can do about it.
Pine Ridge is a different situation than any other place
because of the large estate homes that are there. The property
setbacks are different than any other neighborhood. So it's not
just something that somebody would automatically know.
Also, personally, I've never owned a corner lot before, so I
didn't realize that there were two front yard setbacks. That
never -- thought never entered my mind that that would be a
problem.
And considering that the large financial investment of this
tennis court -- I never would have gambled on the fact that there
could be a problem like this coming up if I knew of it or even
thought of it.
So in spite of this honest mistake, there are many logical
reasons as to why that I'm requesting' that you grant an approval
today. And a few of them, if I may, are first of all, the tennis
court itself is a lifetime dream of mine to have. There's no other
opportunity for me to ever have a tennis court again. And as I've
played tennis all my life, it's something that I've always looked
forward to. There's no other place to put the tennis court on this
property. There's no saying well, let's just move it. There is no
Page 195
January 11, 2000
other place.
As you can see from the photo, the tree and the pool don't
allow to you move it back, so that would be an impossibility. And
with the setbacks all along that side property being 60 -- or 50
feet, it's not going to happen. Even though it's an acre and a
quarter size lot. The pool was existing, by the way. I didn't just
put it in there.
And -- okay. Also, the number two reason is that there are a
lot of environmentally protected trees on this property, and I feel
that a 100-year-old live oak tree is much more valuable than any
other piece of thing, any item that I could possibly have. And I
went through a lot of effort to redesign the house so that I could
salvage as many of the trees as possible. So that is a
consideration, too.
Also, this tennis court is not visible from the road. The
small part of the fence that is visible is behind a fully landscaped
berm that you would never even know it was there. So it's not a
hindrance. There's no wind screen to be unsightly.
Also, the tennis court does not encumber anyone's property.
It doesn't cause an access problem of any kind. It's doesn't hurt
anybody.
I have a very quiet lifestyle. No big party plans or children,
and I don't anticipate any heavy usage at all.
Another reason is, is that I hired a fully licensed insured
tennis court contractor, not just some person that was driving
down the road in a pickup truck to put a tennis court in. They
know what they're doing, and I paid extra for that. And so I
relied on their expertise when it came to enforcing any county
code requirements.
And the issue of the setback is actually the fence itself. It's
not really the tennis court, it's the fence that is the main
problem.
Several of my neighbors have signed a letter stating that
they don't have a problem with it at all. And I only have two
adjoining neighbors as it is, so that doesn't seem to be an issue.
The neighborhood of Pine Ridge is currently undergoing a
major real estate redevelopment surge, and there's a lot of older
Page 196
January 11, 2000
homes in that neighborhood that need updating and improved
upon, and mixed in with big large homes like is typical of Naples.
But I put a major financial investment into the house and the
whole entire property. And not only that, but I went through a lot
of effort to make sure that the berms on the outside of the whole
perimeter were completely landscaped and looked beautiful to
any person that just happened to be driving by. So it's not
something that was done without thinking about it. A lot of
effort went into it and especially into making sure that the tennis
court fence was not going to be visible. So it would seem that
everyone involved in this -- that the neighbors would be
agreeable to having their property values increased because of
what I've done to that property.
The other point is, is that when you drive through the
neighborhood you see tennis courts, you see basketball courts,
you see a volleyball court that is completely professional sized lit
volleyball court, and it's much more visible from the road than
mine. I mean, how good does that look?
But also, which I'm sure everyone knows, that there's -- if
you drive through Pine Ridge neighborhood, there's even goats
grazing there now. So I don't feel that my little part of a fence is
going to hurt very many people.
And thank you for considering my financial and
environmental concerns today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question for the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you be willing to take
down the lights?
MS. O'SULLIVAN: Well, I would be willing to agree to some
kind of a time restraint on the usage of the lights, as well as the
dimmers, but--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess -- I don't see how you
have -- to be honest here, I'm sorry, I think you're completely
innocent in this, but I don't see how I could possibly support
approving the variance. I can't find a way. So, you know, for my
vote I bet you're going to go lose this. I'm just wondering if the
property -- if your neighbors would be -- if they could be calmed
Page 197
January 11, 2000
down enough by taking down the lights that maybe then we
could just find a way to vote yes for the approval of the variance,
only if everybody agreed. I'm just afraid you're going to lose and,
you know, try to find some middle ground here.
MS. O'SULLIVAN: Even if we had the shields to protect,
that's not going to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not for me.
MS. O'SULLIVAN: Well, I would have to -- would my attorney
recommend --
GOMMISSIONER NORRIS: With all due respect,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, we're not here discussing the lights
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
39-foot encroachment --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I know.
We're really discussing the
I know, you're right.
-- of the setbacks.
And I'm just looking for some
way to try to make everybody happy instead of being technically
correct. I mean, if there's not a way, there's not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I was glad from your one
comment to hear that not only is your contractor licensed but
insured as well, because it sounds as though that insurance may
need to be called upon here.
Does your attorney want to add something?
MS. MILLER: My name is Karen Elizabeth Miller and I'm here
for Mrs. O'Sullivan. I wasn't at the last hearing and neither was
the contractor. Only Mrs. O'Sullivan appeared at that time. So I
don't know what happened there, and maybe we didn't do a good
job of presenting our case.
I understand that the issue is about the variance of the -- it's
actually not the entire tennis court that we're talking about.
We're talking about the one end fence. And legally Mrs.
O'Sullivan could have a six-foot high fence there. She could have
a six-foot high fence right on her property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, I think we are talking
about -- even if you took the fence down, the court itself violates
Page 198
January 11, 2000
the setback. And that's your biggest problem.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You have a 50-foot setback there,
you understand that?
MS. MILLER: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fence or no fence. You have a
50-foot setback for the tennis court.
MS. MILLER: But what I'm saying is she could -- forget the
court. She could have the -- suppose you say the court has to go,
the court's gone. She could put up a fence there. And for all
intents and purposes, if she puts up a six-foot fence there with
the landscaping that she has, people who are driving by, it's
going to look exactly the same. The only thing that's going to
happen is she's not going to have a tennis court. So, you know,
to me as a practical --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's not the issue.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not the issue. I'm sorry,
it's just not the issue. The issue is that there's a tennis court
built 39 feet encroached into a front yard setback of 50 feet.
That's the issue. The issue is not whether you can see it from
the road, the issue is not the lights, the issue is that it's built into
the setback. I'm sorry, but that's the issue.
MS. MILLER: I understand that. But I also understand that
there -- that there's a procedure to ask for a variance for that,
and that's what we're here doing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what you're doing today.
MS. MILLER: Right. And the setback isn't encroaching on
anybody else's property, it's on a street. The two adjoining
neighbors, the setback is correct on those two properties. Of the
two adjoining neighbors to her, whose property is directly
impacted by her property, one of them signed a letter saying they
approved of the tennis court and one of them had just moved to
the neighborhood, said they didn't mind, but they really didn't
want to get involved in the issue in one way or the other.
So the people who are here that are complaining aren't the
people who are the adjoining neighbors. They're just people in
the neighborhood who I don't even believe are truly affected by
this. When you drive by the property and here's this beautiful
Page 199
January 11, 2000
property that makes your neighborhood better, and this honest
mistake was made by a contractor. And yet maybe Mrs.
O'Sullivan can sue her contractor and maybe she can get her
insurance money, but she's not going to have a tennis court,
because there's no other place for her to have a tennis court.
There's no other way.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's actually not entirely
accurate.
MS. MILLER: I don't believe that on her piece of property,
unless you tear her house down or remove her pool, which was
preexisting, and then the only way you can do that is to tear
down all this natural vegetation. And to me it seems like in
Collier County one of the main things that we try to do is keep
our natural vegetation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Only in Naples, Florida would it
be considered a hardship because you can't fit in your tennis
court beside your swimming pool on your one-acre lot.
MS. MILLER: In Dade County you wouldn't be allowed to cut
down that oak tree. So, you know, there -- there -- I understand
that. And, you know, that's a hard position for us, because, you
know, it's hard to say oh, gee, we really want to have a tennis
court. But we're all human beings. A mistake was made, you
know. She didn't make the mistake. She tried to do the right
thing for the environment. She tried to fulfill her life-long dream.
That's all she tried to do.
And now, you know, what's her remedy? She can spend a
couple of years in court, this woman can go through misery, you
know, when all that needs to be done is a variance could be
granted. And I'm not really sure what the other people's
concerns are, except that I think that they have to do with the
lights. And the lights can stay no matter what, because the
lights aren't illegal. The lights are fine. Mrs. O'Sullivan can keep
the lights there forever. So --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's not the issue.
MS. MILLER: So the lights aren't the issue. And that's what
everybody is trying to make an issue out of, is they're mad about
the lights. They're not mad about the fence, they're mad about
Page 200
January 11, 2000
the lights. And they're trying to use that argument to make her
tear down her tennis court.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, nobody up here is mad about
anything.
MS. MILLER: I'm talking about the people who are opposing
the variance and think that you're going to hear them. I'm
anticipating so that I don't have to get back up again and rebut,
because it's late in the day and I'm sure everybody's tired. You
know, I don't believe there's another remedy for us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, do you
have a question?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't have a question. I could
see missing something five feet, seven feet. I could even give
them 10 feet. But 39 feet? How do you miss something that far?
MS. MILLER: Well, I think that she thought it was 30 feet
and she measured from the roadway, not knowing there was a
19-foot right-of-way for the county there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Quite plain and simple, that's
gross negligence on the part of the contractor. I mean, if you're
a contractor in Collier County, you have to understand the basic
concept of right-of-way, not edge of pavement. And I mean, that
is just plain negligence.
And I haven't heard anything that can persuade me in good
conscience to grant a variance because someone was just
terribly negligent in doing their job. And unfortunately, when you
said, you know, put this poor woman through misery, I mean,
that's not our intent, not our purpose here. But if it's a difficult
situation and if you end up in court, so be it. But that's caused
by her negligence in doing the job she was hired to do.
Knowing the setbacks, what the requirement is, and
specifically knowing it's from right-of-way are just basic -- very,
very basic requirements of being a contractor.
And so I apologize that it puts you in the awkward spot it
does, but I can't in good conscience grant somebody a variance
after the fact just because there was negligence on the part of
the contractor.
MS. MILLER: Thank you.
Page 201
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
speakers?
MR. McNEES:
Tyrone Medina.
MS. WATSON:
Do we have some other public
You have two. A Mimi Watson followed by
For the record, my name is Mimi Watson. I
am a member of the board of directors of the Pine Ridge Civic
Association. I live in the neighborhood of Caribbean and Ridge
Drive, but I'm over on East Avenue.
However, I went and visited with all the neighbors around
Mrs. O'Sullivan's home, and they did not agree that the variance
was acceptable. There were complaints about the lights, yes.
The lights have not been on, to our knowledge, since the
planning hearing. And -- but all of the neighbors that I talked with
felt that a 39-foot variance is not just carelessness. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: And Tyrone Medina.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's our final speaker?
MR. McNEES: Yes, sir.
MR. MEDINA: I waited a long time. Hi, my name's Tyrone
Medina. I live directly across the street from this building and
this structure that was being constructed.
And I take objection with what the attorney has said,
because it does affect my particular situation. I had called Mr.
Carter before, because this building then extends out to this
fence, and now they put a berm outside that fence. And that
berm clearly will obstruct traffic -- the view of traffic on that
corner. It's a huge berm.
And you've been mentioning six feet. And I don't know the
laws, but clearly that berm goes way over that six foot. And
when you get up to that corner, if you're not right up to that
corner, you cannot see the oncoming traffic. So to
accommodate this fence of this tennis court, this berm proceeds
out into the easement that clearly obstructs your view of the
traffic that goes through Ridge and Caribbean. And there -- that
is a big berm. It's not a tiny little berm. And it will get larger
with the trees that were put on it.
I have three children. They play in that area. There are
other children. And yes, I do have children. I think it's a family
Page 202
January 11, 2000
neighborhood. And it is a possible dangerous area that we've
now set up with this berm to accommodate a tennis court that
was placed too close to the road to begin with.
So that was my primary objection to this whole thing. It's a
security issue. Not the tennis court, it's not a security problem,
but this berm that was created to block this tennis court so that
you could now say it's a beautiful area.
And I do think it is a great improvement to the area, but it's
not within the confines of what, you know, the law is. And
unfortunately, that's the way it works.
I do have an investment in the neighborhood. I have put in
money into my property. And I welcome people doing that as
well. But I had to do it within the restraints as well.
So I'm sorry, I'm just concerned about kids. That's a bus
stop corner. It's not a lit neighborhood at night. That berm
accommodating that fence and that tennis court proceeds too far
out. And you cannot see it on that picture that is shown there.
I'm talking about the corner of Ridge and Caribbean where
that -- down on the lower-most corner, you cannot see well there.
And there's only one-way stop sign there. I'm going to petition to
put a four-way stop sign, because I've seen a ma]or accident
there with people going 50 miles an hour through that street
trying to get from the east side to the west side from either
Autumn Woods or Villages of Monterey using Ridge Drive as a
cut-through. I know that's a separate issue. But that will create
more accidents, and you'll see them.
Anyway, that was my whole point. I've been there for
seven-plus years, and so this is not something that I just jumped
up here. I've never come up to complain before. And I'm sorry if
it creates a hardship to anyone, but that whole situation should
be corrected. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got a question for staff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Reischl?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Assuming that the variance is
denied, does the berm come down?
MR. REISCHL: No.
Page 203
January 11, 2000
Just to add also, one of the many callers we had on this
complained about the berm. I'm not sure if it was Mr. Medina or
not. But we sent the engineering inspection supervisor out to
take a look at it, and he said it did not impede the visual sight
distance. So, no, a berm is not considered a structure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if the variance is denied, what
has to be removed?
MR. REISCHL: The fence would have to be removed or
lowered, and the court could not be there anymore.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The court would have to be
removed.
MR. REISCHL: At least up to 50 feet.
And Mr. Cautero has informed me that if code enforcement
is forced to go out and red tag this, then it would go to the code
enforcement board and they would impose fines or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fines, and that's a big thing.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record.
I can't presuppose what the code enforcement board would
do. Remember, we lost the Lely case. We would cite this
property owner and bring it to the Code Enforcement Board.
Once it goes to that board, I don't want to predict what they may
do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, the board is going to
either find it's legal or it's not. They're not going to find -- they
don't have the ability to grant a variance. So -- MR. CAUTERO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- we can't presuppose what
they'll find. But I'd be hard-pressed to find a way that they would
say 11 feet meets the requirements of the law.
MR. CAUTERO: One would -- one would -- I would agree with
you, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you want a couple of minutes
to wrap up, you're more than welcome to.
MS. MILLER: I just wanted to make a comment about the
berm.
The tennis court isn't near the intersection that he's
discussing, so I don't really think that that berm that he's talking
Page 204
January 11, 2000
about really relates to the tennis court situation. I think that -- I
don't really have anything else to say. I just wanted to point that
out,
And I was pleased to see that people weren't complaining
about the lights. They haven't been used in any way to hamper
anybody.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Stand near the microphone,
please.
MS. MILLER: Mrs. O'Sullivan wants to get along with
everyone in the neighborhood. You know, she hasn't done
anything intentionally to make anybody upset or, you know, to
cause any hard feelings also. I think that also that the -- that Ms.
Ritter wanted to make one last comment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure. If it's new information we
don't have, that's fine.
MS. RITTER: I would just like to say that I understand your
point of view being 11 feet from the setback and it is negligent.
In the fact I did approximately 200 courts last year in Collier and
Lee County, and this is the only time I've ever had any problems
with a red tag or not complying with the setbacks, the variances,
and it was an honest mistake.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody's perfect, and, you know,
I appreciate you wanting to say that for your own reputation, that
you built a lot of them right, this is the one that apparently --
MS. RITTER: The only one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion from Commissioner
Mac'Kie, second from Commissioner Berry to deny the request.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 205
January 11, 2000
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 2000-16, RE PETITION CU 99-28, MR. JEFF L.
DAVIDSON, REPRESENTING TTT, INC., REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT
TO ALLOW FOR AN EARTHMINING OPERATION FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RED DEER ROAD AND
APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR-
846) - ADOPTED
Which takes us to the former 17(B), now 13(A)(5).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This has to do, I think, with the
excavation?
MR. BELLOWS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Another excavation.
I just have a question. I believe -- and I spoke to the
petitioner at a break regarding this item, and I believe this is to
be a homesite; in other words, it's a lake and there will be two
homes. If he wants to come up and clarify that. So this is not
like a pit, it's going to be a fill pit kind of situation.
MR. DAVIDSON: For the record, I'm Jeff Davidson. I'm the
engineer for the property owner.
And that's right, it's a 10-acre tract. Agriculturally zoned.
And the petitioner intends to dig a four-acre lake, a commercial
excavation, because there's more fill than they need on the site.
They'll remove the fill from the site except for what they need on
the site. Then they'll have two five-acre residential lots on the
lake.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's only technically a
commercial excavation because you've got more -- once you dig
the lake, you've got more file than you need for your two houses.
MR. DAVIDSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I just needed to have that
clarified. And once I had that clarified, I was okay with it. So I'd
like to --
Page 206
January 11, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- move approval of this item.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion from Commissioner
Berry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Second from Commissioner
Mac'Kie. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Bet he's glad that he stood
around all day for that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Commissioner Berry was
just giving you a hard time, keeping you here nine hours.
Item #14A
FEBRUARY 29, 2000, DCA MEETING IN FT. MYERS AT THE
HARBORSIDE CONVENTION CENTER- DISCUSSED
Staff communications. Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: Mr. Cautero has one item he'd like to discuss
with you, and I have two brief items.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Commissioners. Vince Cautero
for the record.
Very briefly, the DCA has announced a series of forums to
gather input on growth management issues, and there is a
session in the morning on February 29th at the Harborside
Convention Center in Fort Myers. I just wanted to bring that to
your attention. If any of you want more specific information, I'd
be happy to mail it or fax it to your office.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm assuming that you or
members of your staff will be there. MR. CAUTERO: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question on that. I know
there was a survey that went around that asked for opinions. Did
Page 207
January 11, 2000
staff file a survey -- a response to the survey?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, we did. Based on the conversations
that we had with you, we filled out the survey based on input we
received from you and mailed it -- or E-mailed it to the DCA. All
that input is being still gathered by the state at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
Item #14B
GULF COAST SKIMMERS ISSUES - RESOLVED
Mr. McNees, you had two items?
MR. McNEES: Make that three. Mr. Olliff informs me, and I
think we need to inform you that there has been apparently
resolution to the Gulf Coast Skimmers' ongoing situation, that
the -- apparently Mr. Gursoy has been declared president with
elections to be held again this coming Thursday and the
Skimmers are skimming once again across Lake Avalon.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good news.
Item #14C
ED ILSCHNER, PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR, RECOGNIZED
FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COUNTY
MR. McNEES: Secondly, Ed Ilschner will be making his way
back to his native Texas at the end of the week, and Ed's given I
think everything he had to give to the citizens of Collier County
for the last three years and I think it's appropriate that we take a
moment to thank him for what he did for us and how hard he
worked in the last three years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Plus my mom said he's a really
good usher at First Baptist. They're really going to miss him
there.
MR. McNEES: I'm sure they're going to miss him at First
Baptist, too. So I just want to thank Ed publicly for his
Page 208
January 11, 2000
contributions and wish him well as he winds his way back to
Texas.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Ed.
Item #14D
ED FINN DESIGNATED TO SERVE AS INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS
ADMINISTRATOR
MR. McNEES: On a related item, for your information, I have
asked Ed Finn to serve as interim public works administrator,
keep the wheels turning and stay the course while we go through
a search process for a replacement for Mr. Ilschner, and I have a
lot of confidence in Ed's ability to keep up to speed and keep
things going while we search for a replacement. I thought you'd
need to know that.
Finally, not long ago we brought to you some transportation
recommendations, minor reorganization, position hire, and told
you some things we're going to do in the transportation issue.
Just kind of to let you know, it's my intention to turn the
heat up on that a little bit and perhaps be a little more
aggressive on some of those recommendations than we had
initially indicated. You'll be getting more communication from me
in that regard. And just so you know where I'm headed, without
getting too far out in front of you, I just want you to know we'll
be talking more about that.
And that's all I have today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, anything you'd like
to share with us?
MR. WEIGEL: Maybe a ditto as to what Mike just said about
transportation for me. And again, it's been a pleasure working
with Ed Ilschner, and I miss him already.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't believe I have anything.
I've said all I need to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
Page 209
January 11, 2000
day.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Happy birthday to me next week.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next week. The 20th. Great
COMMISSIONER BERRY: He catches up with me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For a short period.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
Item #15A
CANVASSING BOARD - COMMISSIONER CARTER SELECTED TO
SERVE~ COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE SELECTED AS ALTERNATE
COMMISSIONER CARTER: One issue. And I saw this. Do we
have to do anything to this county canvassing board situation
today, or do we --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next meeting.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Next week.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Usually it's the chairman that
assumes that duty.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We have a little problem there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You want to put it off or do we
just do it today and get it off the list?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then I'll nominate the
vice-chairman for that duty.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, thank you so much,
Commissioner Norris.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other than from the vice-chair,
is there any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's been nominated and seconded
for the vice chair.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I also believe we have to
have a backup, it would only leave Commissioner Mac'Kie, so it
seems that Commissioner Mac'Kie and I get the duty.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since we're not running, we get
the duty.
Page 210
January 11, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
off next time.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
informative and you'll enjoy it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
have anything?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Right, okay. So that just takes it
It's fun. You'll have a good time.
Doesn't take a lot. It's
That's it. That's all I have.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you
Not a thing.
Thank you all and good night.
*****Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by
Commissioner Carter and carried 5/0, that the following items
under the consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or
adopted:*****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2000-01 AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FUNDING IN THE
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, TO A MAXIMUM OF $6,250
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2000-02 AND AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING A 75%
DEFERRAL OF IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY
HENRIETTA EIMERS AT 3418 WESTCLOX STREET, IMMOKALEE.
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2000-03 AND AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING A 50%
WAIVER/50% DEFERRAL OF IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO
BE BUILT BY CARLOS M. LOPEZ AT 3047 54TM STREET, S.W.,
GOLDEN GATE CITY.
Item #16A4
Page 211
January 11, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-04 AND AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING A 100%
WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY
ENOCK JARBATH AT 5224 MARTIN STREET IN NAPLES MANOR
ADDITION.
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2000-05 AND AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING A 100%
WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE BUILT MY
MARCIA L. BICHARD AT 2721 LINDA DRIVE.
Item #16A6
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PLANNING SERVICES COMPUTER
UPGRADE PURCHASE
Item #16A7 - Moved to Item #8A10
Item #16A8 - Moved to Item #8A9
Item #16A9
FINAL PLAT OF "VILLA FLORENZA" WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A10
PETITION VAC 98-025 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A 12" WIDE PARCEL OF LAND
CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY AS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT
LOCATED IN THE HERITAGE APARTMENTS, EXECUTION OF THE
QUITCLAIM DEED, ACCEPTING A 15' WIDE DRAINAGE,
REPLACEMENT EASEMENT, ALSO LOCATED IN THE HERITAGE
APARTMENTS
Page 212
January 11, 2000
Item #16B1
PURCHASE OF SEATING BENCHES FROM NORIX GROUP, INC.,
ON FLORIDA STATE CONTRACT 420-420-98-1 AND BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE ALL STREETSCAPE FURNITURE
FOR THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
Item #16B2
BID NO. 99-3015 FOR "GENERATOR REPAIR, MAINTENANCE AND
INSTALLATION" TO AAA GENERATOR IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $130~000
Item #16B3
DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS DIRECTOR AS
AN ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOLID
WASTE DEPARTMENT TO SIGN ALL GRANT APPLICATIONS AND
QUARTERLY GRANT REPORTS FOR THE RECYCLING &
EDUCATION GRANT, WASTE TIRE GRANT, AND LITTER CONTROL
AND PREVENTION GRANT
Item #16B4
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JANICE W.
WARDELL AND BILLIE D. MARTIN, FOR A 10 -+ ACRE PARCEL
NEEDED TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LANDS FOR
THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
CONCEPTUAL PERMITS AND FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE
PROPOSED EAST-WEST COLLECTOR ROADWAY BETWEEN
COUNTY BARN ROAD AND CR-951, IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000,
AND WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN APPRAISAL
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 125.355(B)
Item #16B5
WORK ORDER NO. PB-99-4 FOR PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
Page 213
January 11, 2000
SYSTEMS TO CLEAR AND GRUB THE SOUTH RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM CR-951 TO 25TM STREET,
PROJECT NO. 63041, IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,696
Item #16B6
WORK ORDER NO. TBE-FT-00-01 FOR TAMPA BAY ENGINEERING
INC., FOR TELEMETRY CONSULTING SERVICES, PROJECT NOS.
70124, 73922 AND 74033, IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,167
Item #16B7 - DELETED
Item #16B8 - DELETED
Item #16B9
AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FROM THE SOLID WASTE TIRE
GRANT TO PROVIDE SAFETY PLAY SURFACES AT AARON LUTZ
COMMUNITY PARK, NAPLES HIGH SCHOOL CHILD
DEVELOPMENT PLAY AREA, BARRON COLLIER HIGH SCHOOL
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLAY AREA, LORENZO WALKER CHILD
DEVELOPMENT PLAY AREA AND FUN TIME NURSERY, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $90,000
Item #16B10
AUTHORIZING THE ADDITION OF E.B. SIMMONDS AS A
SECONDARY CONTRACTOR FOR CONTRACT SERVICE TYPE I, TO
INCLUDE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION ON BID #98-2921
Item #16B11
BID #99-3004 TO WALLACE INTERNATIONAL FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ONE CREW CAB FLAT BED DUMP TRUCK, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $45,275
Page 214
January 11, 2000
Item #16B12
BID #99-3012 TO LINDNER INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ONE SINGLE DRUM VIBRATORY ROLLER, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $69,250
Item #16B13
BID #99-3003 TO WALLACE INTERNATIONAL FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ONE 5-CUBIC YARD DUMP TRUCK, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $40,330
Item #16B14
RESOLUTION 2000-06 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION
GRANT APPLICATION AND ATTENDANT AGREEMENTS WITH THE
DOT FOR U.S. 41 NORTH LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN
SEAGATE DRIVE AND GULF PARK DRIVE
Item #16B15
SETTLEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DISPUTE WITH
PRESERVATION SERVICES INC., FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS TANKS
REPAIRS, CONTRACT 96-2524, AND RELATED WORK ORDER
AMENDMENT WITH AGNOLI BARBER & BRUNDAGE, PROJECT
70023, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,149.83
Item #16B16
PURCHASE OF ONE TRACTOR/MOWER COMBINATION FROM
CREEL FORD TRACTOR COMPANY FOR MAINTENANCE OF
COUNTY ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY, BASED ON A BID OBTAINED BY
MADISON COUNTY~ IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,999
Item #16B17
Page 215
January 11~ 2000
BID #99-2985 TO NATIVE CREATIONS, INC., TO REMOVE EXOTIC
VEGETATION AT SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY, PROJECT 73916, IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,400, AND
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR DESIGN, PERMITTING, ENGINEERING
AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THIS PROJECT
Item #16B18
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LAW GIBB GROUP,
INC., ARDAMAN AND ASSOCIATES, ASC GEOSCIENCES, AND
FORGE ENGINEERING FOR THE FIXED TERM MATERIAL TESTING
SERVICES (RFP #99-2962)
Item #16B19
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NTC
DEVELOPMENT, LTD. FOR USE OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY
LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CARLTON LAKES PUD, TRACT "C",
IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,400
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2000-07 AUTHORIZING THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR
TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS TO
PURCHASE INTERNET ON-LINE DATABASE SUBSCRIPTIONS
Item #16C2
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BELLOMO HERBERT AND
COMPANY AND APPROVE FINAL RANKING OF LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT FIRMS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MASTER
PLAN FOR NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK~ RFP 99-2947
Item #16D1
Page 216
January 11, 2000
AFFIDAVIT WITH BELLSOUTH MOBILITY, INC., CONCERNING
OWNERSHIP OF A COUNTY-OWNED COMMUNICATION TOWER
REGARDING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LEASE AGREEMENT
Item #16D2
ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE BETWEEN ALAGOLD CORPORATION,
D/B/A LANDMARK ESTATES AND HOMETOWN LANDMARK LLC
Item #16D3
CONTRACT AMENDMENT 98-2856 WITH WILSON, MILLER,
BARTON & PEEK, INC. FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF THE
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE MAIN
GOVERNMENT COMPLEX DRI, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$195,000
Item #16D4
RATIFICATION OF RESULTS CONCERNING THE SALE AND
TRANSFER OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS
AUCTION OF NOVEMBER 20, 1999
Item #16D5
AWARDING RFP #99-2975 DIGITAL COPIERS TO J.M. TODD INC.,
FOR THE CENTRAL COPIER SYSTEM, IN AN APPROXIMATE
AMOUNT OF $30~000
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT - BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 00-
082, 00-084, 00-095 AND 00-096
Item #16G1 - Moved to Item #8G1
Item #16H1
Page 217
January 11, 2000
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented
to the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the
following departments:
Page 218
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
JANUARY 11, 2000
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACT[ON AS DIRECTED:
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter
136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period:
A. November17-23,1999
B. November 24 - 30, 1999
C. Decemberl - 14,1999
3. Districts:
Ao
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Agenda for December 8, 1999
meeting and List of Fire Commission Meeting Dates for 1999/00
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes for September 22,
1999 and October 27, 1999 meetings and Budget for year 2000 (incl. in
September 22, 1999 minutes)
Co
Port of the 151antis Community Improvement District -- Minutes for October 21,
1999 and December 16, 1999 meetings
Do
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes for July 12, 1999
and November 2, 1999 meetings and Budget for year 2000 (incl. in November 2,
1999 minutes)
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Certification and copies of
Resolution 2000-8 and Ordinance No. 99-81
Fo
South Florida Water Management District's Five-Year Capital Improvements
Plan and Fiscal Year 1998-1999 fiscal Report and FY2000 Budget-In-Brief
4. Minutes:
AG
Collier County Airport Authority - Agendas for November 8, 1999 and December
13, 1999 meetings and minutes of October 11, 1999 meeting
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agendas for November
12, 1999 and December 10, 1999 meetings and minutes of£
November 12, 1999 meetings
iNO. /&/'/
JAN 1 1 20O0
Eo
Fo
Go
Ho
Ko
Lo
Mo
Ro
Ochopee Fire Control District - Minutes of October 4, 1999 meeting
Library Advisory Board - Minutes of September 22, 1999 and October 27, 1999
meetings
Environmental Advisory Council - Agendas for November 3, 1999 and
December 1, 1999 meetings and minutes of October 13, 1999 meeting
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Minutes of September 29, 1999 and October
27, 1999 meeting
Collier County Planning Commission - Agendas for November 1 g, 1999,
December 2, 1999 and December 16, 1999 meetings and minutes of October 7,
1999, October 21, 1999, November 4, 1999, November 17, 1999 and November
18, 1999 meetings
Rural Lands Oversight Committee- Minutes of October 13, 1999 and November
1, 1999 meetings
Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for December 1, 1999
meeting and minutes of October 28, 1999 and November 3, 1999 meetings
Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board- Agenda for November 19,
1999 meeting and minutes of October 29, 1999 and November 19, 1999 meetings
lmmokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency - Minutes of September 2,
1999
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for October 27, 1999 and
minutes of September 22, 1999 meeting
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for December 15, 1999 and
minutes of November 17, 1999 meeting
Bayshore Beautification Advisory Committee - Minutes of November 3, 1999
and November 18, 1999 meetings
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee- Agenda for December 14,
1999 meeting and minutes of November 9, 1999 meeting
Coumy Government Productivity Committee - Minutes of October 20, 1999 and
November 17, 1999 meetings
Utility Authority -Minutes of July 26, 1999 meeting
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force - Minutes of October 2
Collier County Community Health Care Ad Hoc Committee - Agenda for
December 8, 1999 meeting
.... AG£1~D'/' ~E,
No.
1999 meeting
JAN 1 ! 2000
Pg. ,~
Fo
Wo
Other
City/County Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee - Agendas for
November 4, 1999 and December 2, 1999 meetings
Radio Road Beauiification Advisory Committee - Agenda for January 10, 2000
and minutes of November $, 1999 meeting
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Minutes of October 27,
1999 meeting
Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee - Agenda for November
17, 1999 and minutes of October 20, 1999 meeting
Annual Report for fiscal year 1999 for the Lower West Coast Mobile Irrigation
Lab
January 11, 2000
Item #16J1
ACCEPTING A 15' WIDE PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT
FROM CLERMONT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., IN THE
PELICAN MARSH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2000-08 RE PETITION V-00-23, ROBERT W.
HERRMANN, REPRESENTING JOSEPH E. D'JAMOOS,
REQUESTING A 7.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 7.5-
FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 0 FEET AND A 10-FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK
TO 15 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 325 SEDGWICK COURT
Item #17B - Moved to Item #13A5
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2000-09 RE PETITION SNR-99-05, ROBERT T.
STROOT, REPRESENTING CROSSPOINTE DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM COMMONS PLACE
WEST AND COMMONS PLACE EAST TO CROSSPOINTE DRIVE,
LOCATED IN THE RIVERCHASE COMMONS SUBDIVISION
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2000-10 RE PETITION VAC 99-016 TO VACATE A 5'
WIDE PORTION OF THE EXISTING 20' WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT ALONG THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDES OF
"PEBBLEBROOK LAKES"
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2000-11 RE PETITION VAC 99-020 TO VACATE THE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF PARCEL D,
Page 219
January 11, 2000
"PELICAN MARSH UNIT SIX", AND TO ACCEPT A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT AS A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT ON SAID PARCEL D
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:45 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVE~tNG BOARD(S) OF
CONTROL
TI MOTH~-CO~ANT! NE, CHAI R--~-~-~
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E..BROCK, CLERK
These~'minut ~es.approved by the Board on
prese or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY
PUBLIC
Page 220