BCC Minutes 12/12/2000 RDecember 12, 2000
REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2000
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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 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 9:04 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Thomas Olliff, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page I
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 12, 2000
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER
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
MANAGER 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) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1
December 12, 2000
INVOCATION - Reverend Susan Diamond, First Christian Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OFAGENDAS
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA
APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. November 14, 2000 - Regular Meeting
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1)
Proclamation designating December 21,2000 as "National Homeless
Persons' Memorial Day". To be accepted by Mr. George Drobinski,
Chairman, Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition and Ms. Kelly
Shavers, Co-Chair.
2)
Proclamation designating the month of December 2000 as "Civil Air Patrol
Week in Collier County". To be accepted by Mr. George Navarini, Captain
of the Civil Air Patrol and Director of Marketing & Public Affairs, Florida
Wing.
3)
Proclamation recognizing Dr. Denise Blanton, County Director of the
University of Florida Extension Service, for receiving the State "Visionary
Leadership" Award from the Florida Association of Extension
Professionals.
B, SERVICE AWARDS
5 Year Attendees:
1)
2)
Raul Leon, Road & Bridge - 5 Years
Gary Harrison, Inspections & Planning - 5 Years
Year Attendees:
3)
4)
Terrence Sumter, Road & Bridge - 10 Years
Michael O'Hara, Facilities Management- 10 Years
2
December 12, 2000
15 Year Attendees:
5)
6)
Judith Jaeger, Public Information - 15 Years
Alamar Smiley, Building Review/Immokalee- 15 Years
C. PRESENTATIONS
1)
Recommendation to recognize James Wyatt, Operator II, Water
Department, as Employee of the Year for 2000.
2)
Presentation of Grant and Matching Fund checks from the Library and
The Friends of the Library to help finance the Seniors On Line Project to
be presented by Doris Lewis, Chair of the Library Advisory Board and Dr.
Jay Wolff, President of The Friends of the Library of Collier County, Inc.
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Request by the Livingston Road Beautification Association and Collier
Naplescape to propose the future creation of a Livingston Road Taxing District to
construct improvements along Livingston Road.
B. Request by Leonard Wisniewski regarding purchase of trailer at County Auction.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 28, 2000
MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 97 2001
MEETING. Consideration of an alternative road impact fee calculation for
a self-serve car wash facility in Immokalee.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approval of the recommended exterior bus design and color, and
selection of a graphics company to provide a trolley design for transit
system buses.
2)
Approve the execution of a county incentive grant program agreement
with the state of Florida Department of Transportation for $3,640,000 in
state matching funds for the six-lane improvement to Livingston Road
3
December 12, 2000
from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road. (Staff requests that this
item be heard at 10:00 a.m.)
3)
Approve the execution of a county incentive grant program agreement
with the state of Florida Department of Transportation for $5,915,000 in
state matching funds for the six-lane improvements to Livingston Road
from Pine Ridge Road to Immokalee Road. (Staff requests that this item
be heard at 10:00 a.m., immediately following Item 8(B)2).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Authorize termination of Arthur Andersen Contract for a Position
Classification Study.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commissioners
Approve The Attached Resolution (00-__) Which Established A Series Of
Position Statements On Key Issues Expected to be addressed by the
Florida Legislature and authorize the Chairman to present the Resolution
to the Legislative Delegation at the Scheduled Hearing on January 17,
2001.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Am
CONTINUED FROM THE 11/14/00 MEETING: Report on status of and
settlement negotiations in Collier County v. Marshall, Et al., Case No. 99-2009-
CA-T, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court (prescription
easement claim for Miller Boulevard Extension) and request for Board direction.
Recommendation for the Board to approve the proposed settlement and release
agreement between the County and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company for
Fireman's Fund's payment of workers' compensation benefits to Sheriff's
employees.
Recommendation to accept a settlement proposal in the case of Jeanette
Saubert and William Saubert vs. Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
4
December 12, 2000
Case No. 99-3972-CA, pending in the Twentieth Judicial Court, Collier County
Florida.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Citizens Advisory Task Force.
B. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee.
Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee.
11. OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
To authorize the establishment of an ad hoc committee to assess the
current and future electoral needs of the community's citizens and the
electors of Collier County, Florida. (Request that this item be heard first
on the regular agenda.)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt by
Ordinance Petition CP2000-01, an amendment to the Growth
Management Plan Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to
establish the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay.
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1)
(This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members.) Petition PUD-99-28,
Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing Vanderbilt Partners II,
Ltd., requesting a rezone from RSF-3(3), A(ST), RMF-6 ST(3), RMF-6(3),
RFM-12 ST(3), RSF-3, RSF-3 ST, RSF-4(3), and RSF-4, to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as Cocohatchee Bay PUD for a
5
December 12, 2000
13,
maximum of 590 residential dwelling units and recreational facilities
including a golf course and clubhouse for property located on the
northwest corner of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive, in Section
8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 532_+ acres.
2)
(This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members.) Petition PUD-99-15,
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 296 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of
the future Livingston Road North, 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 59.16 _+
acres.
3)
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 23~ 2001
MEETING. Petition PUD-2000-16, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole
Montes and Associates, Inc., representing Auto Vehicle Parts Co.,
requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce
Center PUD for a maximum of 433 residential dwelling units and a
maximum of 270,000 square feet of retail and office uses, for property
located in the northwest quadrant of 1-75 and Collier Boulevard (C.R.
951), in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
consisting of 70 _+ acres.
C. OTHER
1)
Adopt an ordinance to amend the Collier County Educational Facilities
System Impact Fee Ordinance by adding a provision for an exemption for
adult-only communities.
2)
Amend Ordinance No. 2000-019, Vehicle for Hire Ordinance, to rescind
the temporary surcharge and increase the taxicab rates.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1)
(This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members.) Petition CU-2000-11,
Jeff Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Big
Island Excavating, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "A-MHO"
zoning district for earthmining for property located ¼ mile south of
6
December [ 2, 2000
14.
15.
Immokalee Road and south of the existing Longan Lake Excavation in the
Corkscrew Community in Section 25, Township 47 South, Range 27 East,
consisting of 102 acres.
2)
(This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members.) Petition CU-2000-15,
Judith A. Innes requesting a Conditional Use "24" of the "A" Rural
Agricultural zoning district for a horse stable on less than 20 acres of land
per Section 2.2.2.3. for property located at 262 and 266 Rose Apple Lane,
in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 4 _+ acres.
B. OTHER
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All 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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Petition VAC-00-016 to vacate the County's interest in a parcel of land
conveyed to Collier County as a 10' wide drainage easement, recorded in
Official Book 686, pages 1664 through 1665, and to accept a 15' wide
drainage easement as a relocation easement. Located in Section 5,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
2)
Petition VAC-00-017 to vacate the County's interest in a parcel of land
conveyed to Collier County as a 15' wide utility easement, recorded in
Official Record Book 2678, Pages 2563 through 2565. Located in Section
13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
3)
Petition SNR-2000-06, Community Development and Environmental
Services Division requesting a street name change from West Avenue in
the Pine Ridge Subdivision to West Street, located in the Pine Ridge
Subdivision, Plat Book 3, Page 51C and Plat Book 4, Page 24, Collier
County, Florida.
7
December 12, 2000
4)
6)
7)
8)
9)
12)
13)
14)
Award Bid #00-3154 for household hazardous waste collection contractor
to USL City Environmental Services of Florida, Inc.
Approve an agreement to accept an Artificial Reef Grant from the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.770,
"Jim Weeks Commercial Excavation, DeSoto Boulevard, Unit 67, Tract
147" located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 28 East: bounded
on the north and south by vacant land zoned Estates, on the west by
DeSoto Boulevard, and on the east by vacant land zoned agricultural.
Approve first amendment to cable television franchise agreement with
MediaOne Enterprises.
Approve transfer of cable television franchise from MediaOne Enterprises,
Incorporated, to Comcast Cablevision of the South, Incorporated.
Approve joint agreement with the City of Naples and the School Board
regarding the County's, City's, and School Board's respective use of
public/educational/government (PEG) programming within the city limits
and the unincorporated areas of Collier County.
Board authorization for the County Attorney to expand scope of services
of retained outside legal counsel to lobby for amendments to Florida's
Communications Services Tax Simplification Act before a final decision is
made whether to file a lawsuit in Federal Court to challenge
implementation of that act.
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Quail West Phase Ill, Unit One".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Montreux at Fiddler's
Creek", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance
Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Saturnia Lakes Plat
One", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Indigo Lakes Unit Four",
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
8
December 12, 2000
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia Lakes", and
approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement
and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mustang Island" and
approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement
and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
A resolution establishing a schedule of development related review and
processing fees, including: providing for new and revised building permit
and land use petition fees; reflecting current fees for fire code plan review
and prevention permits collectively established and adopted by the
independent fire districts in Collier County and approved by the Board of
County Commissioners on November 28, 2000; adopting that same
schedule of fees for the dependent fire districts in Collier County; updating
language to reflect current nomenclature; superseding Resolution 99-328.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Adopt resolutions and enter into contract renewal with the Florida
Department of Transportation for roadway sweeping and median mowing
at selected locations within Collier County.
2) This item has been deleted.
3)
Approve a budget amendment to provide funds to the Bayshore Municipal
Services Taxing Unit Beautification fund construction budget.
4)
Approve a budget amendment to adequately fund Transportation
Administration, recognize unanticipated revenue and fund the move to the
Transportation Administration, Engineering and Planning Department.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve delegating authority to the Public Utilities Administrator to
authorize downward modifications of the Take or Pay provisions in the
Reclaimed Water Irrigation Contracts.
2)
Approve a standard County Contract with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. for
professional engineering services as per RFP ¢¢00-3046 "Solid Waste
Characterization and Program Analysis."
3)
Encumber FY-2001 funds for engineering services during construction of
County utility relocations in conjunction with U.S. 41 road widening from
Myrtle Road to Old U.S. 41, Projects 70047, 70048 and 73048.
9
December 12, 2000
4)
Approve list of qualified engineering firms for RFP 00-3119, Annual
Contract for Utility Engineering Services.
5)
Approve a budget amendment for driveway structural repairs for the
Mandatory Trash Collection and Disposal Program for District 1.
6)
Approve a Change Order to a Construction Contract with Project
Integration, Inc., for the North County Water Reclamation Facility 5-MGD
Expansion Project, Bid 99-2908, Project 73031.
7) This item has been deleted.
8)
Award Request for Proposal ¢¢00-3129 for the purchase of an Automatic
Meter Reading System.
9)
Approve Consent Order Case No. 00-0951-11-HW, Collier County
Regional Water Treatment North Plant.
10)
Approve funding and a Work Order for construction engineering
inspection services for a 12" water main on East U.S. 41 from Manatee
Road to Boyne South and a 6" force main from pump station 3.17 to
Boyne South, Projects 70862 and 73061.
Amend Professional Services Agreement with Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., for the
North County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Contract 95-2323, Project
70859.
Amend Work Order ABB-FT-00-06 for engineering services related to the
development of a supplemental water source to augment the Reclaimed
Water Supply, Project 74125.
13)
Convey a Utility Easement from Collier County, a Political Subdivision of
the State of Florida, to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, as the Governing Body of Collier County and as Ex-
Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District for
Construction and Maintenance of Electrical Lines, Fiber Optic Lines, Raw
Water Mains and Wells as part of the South County Regional Water Plant
Reserve Osmosis Expansion Project.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Amend the Agreement with the Collier County Fair Board which provides
a tax-exempt commercial paper loan for the construction of two wings for
the Agricultural Pavilion.
1o
December 12, 2000
Fm
2)
Approve Work Order #BSW-00-09 to Barany Schmitt Summers & Weaver,
Inc. for professional architectural services at Golden Gate Community
Center.
3)
Approve Work Order #ABB-FT-01-01 to Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc.
for professional engineering services at Golden Gate Community Center.
4)
Authorize preparation and advertisement of an ordinance establishing the
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
Authorize implementation of the Haldeman Creek Restoration Project.
6)
Approve Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with
Humiston & Moore Engineers for the Marco Island Segmented
Breakwater Project.
7)
Approve Amendment No. 8 to the Professional Services Agreement with
Humiston & Moore Engineers for work associated with the Big Marco and
Capri Pass Inlet Management Plan.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Approval to Create and Fund a new position titled, "Wellness Coordinator"
which will manage the County's Corporate Wellness Program.
2) This item was deleted.
3)
Approve a Change Order for Law Engineering and Environmental
Services, Inc. in the amount of $6,607.82 for additional costs associated
with the disposal and remediation of contaminated soil discovered during
the replacement of piping on four underground fuel storage tanks.
4)
Authorize a Contract Amendment and Budget Amendment for Design
Services for the new Immokalee Jail Center.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Approval of an Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance
Competitive Grant Application.
2)
Approval of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the
Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department.
11
December 12, 2000
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #01-045;
#01-047; #01-057.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Commissioner request for approval for payment to attend function serving
a valid public purpose.
2)
Commissioner request for approval for payment to attend function serving
a valid public purpose.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Recommendation to Adopt the Resolution and Budget Amendment
Appropriating Carry Forward and Expenditure Budgets for Open Purchase
Orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2000.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation that the Board approve the settlement in Ingersoll v.
Collier County, Case No. 98-4274-CA, now pending in the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida, pursuant to which the
County would pay $45,000 and all claims against the County would be
dismissed with prejudice.
2)
Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for approval
of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue multi-family housing
revenue bonds to be used to finance a qualifying apartment project.
3)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
mediated Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Final Judgment to be
drafted incorporating the same terms and conditions as the mediated
Settlement Agreement relative to the acquisition on Parcel Nos. 41T and
13-45 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. John B. Fassett, Trustee of
the Anne M. Fassett Trust dated 6/5/86, et al., Case No. 99-3040-CA.
12
December 12, 2000
17.
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 PUD-2000-15 Bruce Anderson, Esq., of Young van Assenderp,
Varnadoe and Anderson, and Greg Stuart, AICP, of Stuart & Associates,
representing Greg Eagle, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural
Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Edison Village
PUD for a maximum of 54,000 square feet of office and commercial uses for
property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) and Lely Cultural Parkway in Section 22, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 7.44 + acres.
Petition PUD-00-17, Mr. Donald A. Pickworth, representing Benderson
Development Co., requesting a rezone from 'T' Industrial to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as 1-75/Collier Boulevard Commercial Center PUD
allowing for commercial retail land uses for property located on the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Davis Boulevard
(S.R. 84), in Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
Petition PUD-84-7(6), George L. Varnadoe, of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe
& Anderson, P.A., representing 951 Land Holdings, Ltd., requesting a rezone
from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for a mixed
residential golf course community and for an amendment to the Marco
Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD for the purpose of adding the land being rezoned
and consolidating this area into the Fiddler's Creek Master Plan while not
increasing the total number of dwelling units authorized for the Fiddler's Creek
portion of Marco Shores. The area to be rezoned is located in Sections 11 and
14, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to
DOA-2000-04)
Petition DOA-2000-04, George L. Varnadoe of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe
and Anderson, P.A., representing 951 Land Holdings, Ltd., for an amendment to
the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek Development of Regional Impact, DRI
Development Order 84-3, as amended, for the purpose of adding approximately
168 acres to the Fiddler's Creek portion of the DRI in which the current land use
theme of residential golf course community is extended without any increase to
the number of dwelling units authorized, and to amend the Master Plan to
13
December 12, 2000
Em
iljustrate the residential/golf course land use theme for property located in
Sections 11 and 14, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Companion to PUD-84-7(6))
Petition R-2000-06, J. Gary Butler, P.E. of Butler Engineering, Inc. representing
Mario Curiale of Southern Development Co. Inc., requesting a rezone from its
current zoning classification of "A" Rural Agricultural to "C-4" General
Commercial. The subject property is an undeveloped 2.02 acre parcel located
on the north side of Tamiami Trail East approximately one half mile east of
Collier Boulevard in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Petition CU-2000-14 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates,
representing Joseph E. Townsend, Trustee, requesting Conditional Use "1" of
the "A" zoning district for earthmining for property located on U.S. 41
approximately 3 Y2 miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 18, Township 51
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 42.5 _+ acres.
Petition V-2000-22, Kay D. Sorensen or Manuel L. Mayo requesting a 7.5 foot
variance from the required side yard of 7.5 feet to 0 feet for property located at
6595 Glen Arbor Way being further described as a certain lot or parcel of land
being a portion of Lot 1, Vineyards Arbor Glen.
Petition V-2000-29, Sammy Hamilton, Jr. representing Everglades Corner, Inc.
requesting a 30 foot variance from the required 50 foot front yard setback
established for automobile service stations to 20 feet for a gasoline service
station canopy replacement for a property located at 31990 East Tamiami Trail,
at the corner of Tamiami Trail and SR 29 approximately 23 miles east of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 25, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Petition VAC 00-018 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the
public's interest in a portion of a 20' wide berm easement and a portion of a
drainage easement in Tract "C", according to the plat of Riviera Colony Golf
Estates - Tract Map" as recorded in Plat Book 10, Pages 104 through 108,
Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section 18, Township 50
South, Range 26 East.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
14
December ] 2, 2000
December 12, 2000
Item #3A, B, &C
CONSENT AGENDA, SUMMARY AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA
- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning. Welcome to the
December 12th Board of County Commissioners meeting. If
you'd all rise for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance. And
Ms. Diamond will be doing the invocation. REVEREND DIAMOND: Thank you.
Let us pray. Strong and gentle God, we come together this
morning. What a great thanksgiving. We thank you for this
beautiful community that we have privilege to call home. We
thank you for the freedoms that we enjoy. We thank you for the
diversity that challenges us to consider opinions different from
our own.
Oh, God, this morning we also thank you for the leadership
that you have provided for this community. Grant them wisdom
and discernment as they consider the issues before them this
day. Remind them of their stewardship and the importance of
your guidance in all their decisions.
We also pray, oh, God, that you would bless the proceedings
this day with a spirit of justice and peace and willingness to
listen and cooperate so that all might glorify your will and your
way. These things we pray in your name. Amen. (Pledge of allegiance recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, which way does the tassel go,
Mr. Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, as a professional Santa
Claus, I--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's close enough.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll tell you that we are all in the spirit
of Christmas. We'll at least wear these --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'm a Scrooge, but I'll do
it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Very good, Commissioner Mac'Kie. We
want no Scrooges on the dais this morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, and you look cute in it. It
matches your outfit.
Page 2
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Good morning and nice hats.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, David, how is that?
MR. OLLIFF'- I will try and walk you through a fairly large
change list this morning. We apologize for that, but it is sort of
traditional, I think, for the last meeting of the year that there be
a lot of things that we try to get taken care of for you.
The first item is actually a deletion. It's Item 8(E)(1) on your
regular agenda. It was in regards to an Arthur Anderson contract
and staff is requesting that we simply delete that item.
Next item is an addition. It is Item 9(D). It is the request to
add an emergency ordinance amending the County's ordinance
regarding water irrigation. And that's at the County Attorney's
request.
The next item is also an addition. It's actually an addition to
your consent agenda. It is approve -- it is approval of a
stipulated settlement, judgment. The only reason we put it on
consent is the total award amount in this case is $400 and we
thought it deserved to be on your consent agenda, but that is
Item 16(L), as in Larry, (4).
Next item is a continuance continuing Item 13(A)(1) on your
advertised public hearings to the January 9th, 2001 meeting.
That is a conditional use, CU 2000-11. That's for our excavation
in the Corkscrew community.
Next item is moving an item off of your consent agenda to
your regular agenda. It's Item 16(A)(3) to 8(A)(2). It is Petition
SNR 2000-06. It is a street name change. It was requested to
change the street name from West Avenue in the Pine Ridge
subdivision to West Street. And that's being moved to the
regular agenda. And we do have some speakers on that item this
morning.
Asking to move Item 17(F), as in Frank, off of your summary
agenda to 13(A)(3). It is a conditional use 2000-14. It's an earth
mining request. It is going to be on your regular agenda.
Asking to change -- this is just a note for the record. There's
an actual change in addition to Item 8(G)(1). There's actually a
bill for the Board to consider this morning. It's a bill that would
amend the special act that's required to be presented to the
legislative delegation hearing. And that would enable the Board
to develop a hearing officer program, should it so choose.
Page 3
December 12, 2000
There is also one change that I need to note for the record
on Item 17(A). It would stay on your summary agenda, but I'm
going to note for the record a change in what's called the SIC
codes or the S-I-C codes that we're actually going to remove
Category Number 7299. And that simply removes a number of the
uses that I think were incompatible with the community that that
petition was going to be surrounded by.
Next item is change to 12(A)(1). Again, this is just
something for the record. We've distributed some amended
language to Exhibit A. That is the Bayshore overlay. I believe
the Board has already had that as part of their change list
package.
Two other changes that are not on your list. We've got a
request under the Board of County Commissioners portion of the
agenda to add a discussion, which would be Item 10(D), a
discussion to have the County participate in a community-wide
Fourth of July event. And that's at Commissioner Coletta's
request.
And then you've had a request from City Councilman Joe
Herms to pull and move to your regular agenda Item 16(D), as in
David, (4), which is the creation of the beach advisory
committee. And should the Board wish to do that, that item
would be 8(D), as in David, (1) under public services.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would hope that as a courtesy
to the City Council and the Mayor -- they have asked -- they sent
the Vice-mayor here to communicate a message to us. I'd hope
we would agree to pull that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That becomes 8(D)(1)?
MR. OLLIFF'. Yes, sir. The last couple of items are notes.
They're not actual moves or changes to your agenda. But, again,
just for the record, it is requesting that 8(B)(2) and (3), which are
under the transportation portion of your agenda, be heard at
10:00 a.m. And then you've got a request from the supervisor of
elections to hear Item 11(A)(1) as the first item on your agenda
following your presentations and service awards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you think they are busy with
anything lately maybe?
MR. OLI. IFF: Item 16(A). Just needed to note for the record
that there was an attached letter that was provided as part of
your change list that needed to be incorporated as part of the
Page 4
December 12, 2000
backup for that item.
And, lastly, Item 16(A)(17), which is the schedule of
development review and permitting fees, we actually distributed
a struck-through and underlined version that had some very
minor changes, but some changes from what was actually in the
published agenda. And those have all been reviewed and
approved by your development services advisory committee.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I'm done with the changes
that I have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one thing for
you, but not necessarily the whole Board. And, that is, I wanted
to report to you, the Chairman, pursuant to Florida Statute
102.141 of the elections code -- it is one of the few statutes that
you haven't heard on TV. But it has to do with the Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners appointing a substitute to
the canvassing board if and when the supervisor of elections is
unable to serve.
As you may be aware, Jennifer Edwards, the supervisor of
elections, is presently in Tampa at a mandatory conference, but
there is a canvassing board meeting scheduled today for 12:00.
It may be a meeting with little to do. It may be a meeting to
determine either whether to adjourn or set a time for another
meeting based upon what the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District
Court and other courts may tell us.
But there is a request from the chairman of the canvassing
board, and that is Judge Gene Turner, for you to appoint a
member as substitute to the canvassing board for the supervisor
of elections for, and only for, the period that she is not here. And
as I look at the statute, with the other three commissioners -- the
new commissioners having been involved in this very election
and Ms. Mac'Kie, of course, serving on the board, that would
leave you the ability to appoint yourself. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think I'm it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I can just comment, too. Our
meeting, sort of as a perfunctory thing in case the Supreme
Court has done something or ordered us to begin recounting
again -- God forbid. But I just want to say Jennifer Edwards is at
this mandatory training meeting for supervisor of elections.
Page 5
December 12, 2000
She's not being derelict in her duties. She's required to be there
as the new supervisor.
And she has advised the members of the board individually,
myself, I know, that if there should be an order for a count to
begin, she's in the car driving down here from Tampa. So she'll
be here for any substantive matters. But, I guess, the Judge just
wants us to have a full compliment. We're having so much fun,
we want you to join us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can hardly wait. But we will -- on
that advice, Mr. Weigel, we will officially break at noon. That
may be a short meeting of a recess for maybe 15 minutes for us
to do what we have to do, depending on where we are in the
agenda.
If it looks like it is going to be a break point, depending on
how we are doing on the agenda, we may just break then until
1:30 for our lunch break, depending on how this agenda moves
this morning. So stay tuned. But officially at noon we will break
for at least 15 minutes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Mr. Chairman, may the record reflect
that you've appointed yourself as the temporary appointee to the
canvassing board.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Duly blessed and noted.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mark my place in history, right? Thank
yOU,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to hear Item
16(C)(12) on the consent agenda. It's amend work order
ABB-FT-00-06.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 16(C)?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16(C)(12), sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That will go to --
MR. OLLIFF: That will become 8(C)(1).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have 8(D)(1).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: C.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, 8(C)(1). Thank you.
That was, what, 167
COMMISSIONER HENNING:16(C)(12).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:No, sir.
Page 6
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to abstain from a consent
agenda item, 16(A)(14). It's a plat. I'm doing some closings in
that real estate community.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Duly noted.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to hear two things
that I have a concern with. One off the consent agenda, which is
16(L)(2).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that is?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Housing finance authority. To be
utilized for financing of qualified apartment projects. But it
doesn't tell me where that project is and I would like to know
that.
MR. OLLIFF: That would become 9(D), as in David, on your
agenda under the County Attorney's report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It might be E.
MR. OLLIFF: I am sorry. 9(E).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the other one is from the
summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The first one was what, 16(L)?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16(L)(2). I should put my glasses
on,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the second one is 17(B) from
the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which one is that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 17(B). Let's see. That is Donald
Pickworth requesting -- representing Benderson Development.
Wants a PUD on the corner -- on the intersection of Collier
Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. And I noted all through here the
problems with the traffic that it's going to incur on that area.
And I just felt that that needed to have some discussion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That will go where, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: That will become 12(B), as in boy, (4).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What was that item, Donna?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 17(B).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Coletta?
Page 7
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: None.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have none.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go ahead. I am sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the agenda,
consent agenda, summary agenda, regular agenda as amended
and noted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have any public speakers on
the consent or summary agenda? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
December 12, 2000
DELETE: ITEM 8(E)1: Authorize termination of Arthur Anderson Contract
for a Position Classification Study. (Staff request.)
ADD: ITEM 9(D): Recommendation to approve an emergency Ordinance to
amend Collier County Ordinance No. 2000-61, the Collier County Water
Irrigation Ordinance to automatically incorporate all water restrictions
contained in each emergency water restriction order declared from time-to-
time by the South Florida Water Management District. (County Attorney
request.)
ADD: ITEM 10(D) Discussion regarding Collier County's sponsorship of 4th
of July parade. (Request by Commissioner Coletta.)
ADD: ITEM 16(L)4): Approval of the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to
the easement acquisition on Parcels 201 and 201T in the lawsuit entitled
Collier County v. Joseph Delucia, et aL, (Golden Gate Boulevard Project).
(Staff request.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 13(A)1 TO JANUARY 9, 2001 BCC MEETING. Petition
CU-2000-11, Jeff Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing
Big Island Excavating, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "AMHO"
zoning district for earthmining for property located t/2 mile south of
Immokalee Road and south of the existing Longan Lake Excavation in the
Corkscrew Community. (Petitioner request.)
MOVE: ITEM 16(A)3 TO 8(A)2: Petition SNR-2000-06, Community
Development and Environmental Services Division requesting a street
name change from West Avenue in the Pine Ridge Subdivision to West
Street. (Staff request.)
MOVE: ITEM 16(D)4 TO 8(D1: Authorize preparation and advertisement of
an ordinance establishing the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
(Request by City Councilman Herms.)
MOVE: ITEM 17(F) TO 13(A)3: Petition CU-2000-14 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP,
of Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. representing Joseph E. Townsend, Trustee,
requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "A" zoning district for earthmining
for property located on US 41 approximately 3-1/2 miles east of Collier
Boulevard. (Staff request.)
CHANGE TO ITEM 8(G)1: Request Board consideration of a bill to amend a
special act for Collier County to authorize the use of a hearing examiner.
(Staff request.)
CHANGE TO ITEM 17(A): -Item 34 on page 12 of the PUD document should
be amended to delete SIC code category number 7299. The deleted
number should be replaced with SIC code Category number 7291. The
effect of this change is to eliminate those uses permitted in the 7299
category. The replacement category of 7291 does not add a new category
of uses; it becomes the last category in the range currently defined starting
from number 7219. (Staff request.)
CHANGE TO ITEM 12(A)1: This item is the review and final adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CP 2000-01) to establish the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay.Based on
conversations with the Department of Community Affairs, the Botanical
Garden and the general public, revisions were made to Exhibit A that is
attached to the proposed ordinance under this item. (Staff request.)
NOTE:
Item 8(B)2 and companion item 8(B)3 to be heard consecutively at 10:00
a.m. (Request by Transportation staff.)
Item 11(A) 1 to be heard first on regular agenda. (Request by Supervisor of
Elections.)
ITEM 16(A)8: Approve transfer of cable television franchise from MediaOne
Enterprises, Inc. to Comcast Cablevision of the South, Inc. Request that
the Board accept the attached letter from Comcast dated November 27,
2000. Letter was omitted from published agenda. (Staff request.)
Item 16(A)17 - Noted for the record that the schedule of Development
Review and Permitting Fees has been amended from the version in the
published agenda. $300 pre-application fee for site development plans and
zoning petitions have been established, and several basic plumbing,
mechanical, electrical and structural permits were increased from $36 to
$50 to be consistent with other permit fee increases. Other revisions were
minor in nature and all other changes have been approved by the
Development Services Advisory Committee.
December 12, 2000
Item #4A
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 2000 REGULAR MEETING -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Motion for minutes, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move for approval of November
14th, 2000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion to approved.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 21, 2000 AS
"NATIONAL HOMELESS PERSONS' MEMORIAL DAY - ADOPTED
All right. Proclamations. Mr. Coletta, you're going to read
the proclamation for us for the National Homeless Persons.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you for this opportunity.
I've been involved a number of years working on these types of
problems.
Proclamation. WHEREAS, research has shown that
approximately 12 million adults nationwide have been literally
homeless at some point in their lives and that over 700,000
people are homeless at any given night; and
WHEREAS, despite the lowest unemployment rate in 30
years and a dynamic stock market, the number of homeless
children today is higher than at any other time since the Great
Depression; and
WHEREAS, in Collier County it is estimated that at any point
in time there are as many as 712 men, women, and children
homeless; and
WHEREAS, over 50 years have passed since the Housing Act
of 1949 calling for a decent home and suitable living environment
for every American family; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Hunger and Homeless
coalition is made up of over 30 local social service and
government agencies who share the mission of supporting the
Page 9
December 12, 2000
planning, delivery and coordination of high quality services to the
hungry and the homeless of Collier County; and
WHEREAS, the hungry and the homeless impact the entire
community and each individual in a community can make a
difference in finding A solution to these problems; and
WHEREAS, the solution begins with action and action begins
with the awareness.
AND THEREFORE be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that Thursday,
December 21 st, 2000, be designed as National Homeless
Persons' Memorial Day.
DONE AND ORDERED this day, the 12th of December, 2000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of this
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who is coming up to receive
that? There we go.
MR. DROBINSKI: George Drobinski.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: George Drobinski is the Director
of Catholic Charities.
MR. DROBINSKI: For the record, again, Commissioners, my
name is George Drobinski, Director of Catholic Charities. Also,
the chairman of the Hunger and Homeless Coalition. On behalf of
the coalition we would like to thank you all for the proclamation
recognizing the National Homeless Persons' Memorial Day, which
will be held the 21st of December, next week.
At this time I would just like the fellow coalition members to
please rise that came here today in the audience. I would like to
point out a couple of things. Last year there was nine active
members on the coalition. Now we have over 30. And our
mission is to access funding and services for the homeless and
the hungry, as well.
Personally, I can tell you this morning when I was at a
Rotary meeting at breakfast one of my fellow Rotarians was
surprised that there was actually a National Homeless Memorial
Page 10
December 12, 2000
Day. Therein lies what it's about. It's about bringing the
recognition that this.is a community problem. It's a State
problem. It's a national problem. But it's bringing it out of the
recognition of one day and the realization that it is every day that
there are people that are hungry and that there are people that
are homeless.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, George, this is a Collier
County problem. I just have to read again 712 homeless people
in Collier County on any given day.
MR. DROBINSKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My goodness.
MR. DROBINSKI: And, certainly, everyone here knows that
the problem exists, but what it takes for the solutions is active
participation on everyone's role. That is, the coalition is made
up of not just social service agencies, but governmental
agencies. So on our lips every day when we do needs
assessments and we do GAPS analysis and such, CDBG rolls off
the tongue and how to get people empowered to be, you know,
self-sufficient. That once we help them, that they are able to
help themselves.
It is something that I would like to take a moment to invite
the Commission, as well as everyone in the audience, as well as
the viewing public, that next week we have to commemorate the
National Homeless Persons' Memorial Day a candlelight vigil,
which will be held on the grounds of St. Matthew's House on
Airport Road. It begins at 6:15 and it lasts until 7:15.
And, again, it is about recognition of that day, but as well
expanding our knowledge to know that it is every day. And it
takes solutions and efforts on everyone's part to take care of the
problem.
And I will just end by saying this. Hunger and homelessness
shouldn't exist and it doesn't have to exist. And that's what the
coalition is about. That's what the unified forces of this
community can do to find those solutions. So thank you again for
the proclamation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, George.
(Applause.}
Item #5A2
Page 11
December 12, 2000
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER,
2000, AS "CIVIL AIR PATROL WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY" -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning, Civil Air Patrol
Week.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. WHEREAS, the Civil Air
Patrol, a civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force is
dedicated to volunteer public service in the interest of
community, State and national welfare; and
WHEREAS, the members of the Florida Wing Civil Air Patrol
are prepared to give their time and resources for the benefit of
the following Americans through aerial and ground research and
rescue operations through humanitarian and merciful flights and
made other unselfish acts in a time of emergency; and
WHEREAS, this organization of volunteers has helped
conduct an effective national program of aerospace education
and training for its members and the general public; and
WHEREAS, the patriotic organization offers an outstanding
program of leadership training and development and career
motivation of its teenage candidate members; and
WHEREAS, December 1, 2000 marks the 59th anniversary of
the founding of the unique organization established to the
American -- to help America in its hour of need during the dark
days of World War II, and which today is dedicated to service of
humanity and to the noncombat defense of the nation.
NOW THEREFORE be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the month of
December 2000 be designated as Civil Air Patrol Month in Collier
County. And do hereby call out the citizens to observe this
month with appropriate ceremonies honoring the men, women
and cadet members of the Civil Air Patrol and of the local units of
this worthy organization.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 12th day of December 2000. May
we call up George Navarini.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I will move approval of this
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Page 12
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is someone here to receive this
proclamation; George -- what was it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: George Navarini.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Navarini.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we'll deliver it to him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that mean I get to take it
home?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That may be considered a gift,
Commissioner. I'm sorry. You'll probably have to leave it here.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING DR. DENISE BLANTON, COUNTY
DIRECTOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA EXTENSION
SERVICE FOR RECEIVING THE STATE "VISIONARY LEADERSHIP"
AWARD FROM THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF EXTENSION
PROFESSIONALS - ADOPTED
Proclamation recognizing the University of Florida extension
service, the visionary leadership, Donna Fiala.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's a proud one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I am proud to read this one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make her come stand up here,
Donna, while you read this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Denise, come on up. I am so proud
to read this. Actually, it's my honor to read this proclamation.
WHEREAS, the Board of Collier County Commissioners has
been notified by the Florida Association of Extension
Professionals that Dr. Denise Blanton, County Director, with the
University of Florida extension service is the recipient of the
Visionary Leadership Award; and
WHEREAS, this award recognizes extension faculty who
have developed innovative educational programs to address
complex problems; and
WHEREAS, Denise has distinguished herself with the
following educational programs: Makes This A Nice Place To
Live for 600 families in Farm Workers Village; Learn To Lead for
203 community leaders working on 32 projects; and Fast Trac,
Page 13
December 12, 2000
for 166 small businesses who increased employment and their
profitability.
NOW THEREFORE be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that it wishes to
extend congratulations to Denise Blanton for receiving the State
Visionary Leadership Award and appreciates her efforts on
behalf of the residents of Collier County. Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
(Applause.)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have
awards for us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The service awards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have the honor of doing service
awards today. And we'll start with the five-year award winners
with Raul Leon and Gary Harrison from road and bridge and from
inspections and planning. If you will come up, we would like to
thank you for your service. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next for ten years of service, we
have Terrarice Sumter from road and bridge and Michael O'Hara
from facilities management. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And for 15 years of service today
we have Alamar Smiley, who is in building review in Immokalee,
and our very own Judy Jaeger, who everybody knows if you ever
come into this courthouse, our information director.
The voice of Collier County. When you call, that's who
you're talking to. When you call the general number, that would
be Judy.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: She's our person.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
Page 14
December 12, 2000
Item #5Cl
JAMES WYATT, OPERATOR II, WATER DEPARTMENT.
RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I have a special opportunity
this morning. This award -- once a year we give the annual
Employee of the Year Award. And it's always great to have this
opportunity to recognize somebody who has given so much to
Collier County.
And this year, you know, we are very pleased that James
Wyatt, Operator II from the water department, is going to be our
employee of the year. If he would, please, come forward this
morning.
I want to duly recognize this gentleman for all the efforts
that he has put into this job. And he's not a person that ever
came to us and said what can the employer do for us, but what
can I do for the employer and the citizens of the Collier County.
And he has been duly recognized for all of his efforts in the water
department, things that he has done.
He does operator training. He does orientations. He has a
fire extinguisher program that he's put into place. Probably all
the things that no one really thinks too much about. But by his
efforts, we are certainly proud to give him this award this
morning.
A plaque, number one, Jim, that signifies that you can hang
and say, look, they duly recognize all the contributions that you
have made. And that says Jim Wyatt, water department, in
recognition of your outstanding ability and superior performance.
And along with that a check for $250, which being
Christmastime I suppose that you will put that to good use. It is
our pleasure to congratulate you on being the employee of the
year.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We really have some shining
stars here from our staff here today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We sure do. We sure do. What a
pleasure.
Also a letter, James, that you can put in your file.
Page15
December t2, 2000
Item #5C2
GRANT AND MATCHING FUND CHECKS FROM THE LIBRARY AND
THE FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY TO HELP FINANCE THE SENIORS
ON LINE PROJECT - PRESENTED
Okay. That takes us to the item that we need to hear in
regards to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The matching funds.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The matching funds presentation. Let
me not get away from that first.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's take it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: (C)(2}, matching funds presentation
from the Friends of the Library. Doctor Jay Wolff and Doris
Lewis, chair of the library.
Have I missed anybody? Do we have anybody else here
that's going to do this?
MS. NORRIS: I am Marilyn Norris. I'm the head of extension
services for the Collier County Public Library.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're bringing checks.
MS. NORRIS: Bringing money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We love that.
MS. NORRIS: It is a holiday time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Looking good.
MS. NORRIS: It's time for that. These checks represent a
grants award and matching funds for the Library Seniors Online
Project. Over the past year the Library Advisory Board and the
library staff realized that there was a real strong need for special
attention for training for seniors who are unable to come to the
library and who are interested in libraries and computers and the
Internet.
And so we made it as our goal to develop a program, a
program that would bring the library and its services to people
who are physically unable to come to the library who are senior
citizens in Collier County. We discovered that the Federal
government has a grant plan called the Library Services and
Technology Act Grant. And this grant allows us to fund these
kinds of projects. The Library Advisory Board encouraged us to
apply. We applied and we were approved.
Page 16
December 12, 2000
We are pleased to be here today to present checks that will
fund this project. This project will allow us to install ten
computer workstations in ten different assisted and independent
living facilities and community centers in Collier County. It will
allow us to provide training online in all kinds of aspects of
computer, regular software, as well as Internet and E-mail. And
we are really excited about being able to bring this to the
citizens -- to the senior citizens of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is just fabulous.
(Applause.}
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys didn't brag very much
how the Friends raised $10,000.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Turn these out for TV land. Fantastic.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the Friends matched that
with $10,000 of their own, is that --
DR. WOLFF: Yes. That's -- just very briefly. The job of the
Friends of the Library is to be a friend to the library. One of the
best ways we can be a friend is to provide money for this type of
a program. And that $10,000 is our part.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations and thank you.
DR. WOLFF: We're delighted to be able to do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. NORRIS: In addition, as a special gift, the library has
pencils for all here present here today which has the library's
website on them. And we ask your permission to distribute them
to those present.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Can they pass them out,
Jim?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Absolutely. Anyone that needs a nice
pencil, take it home and put it underneath the tree from Santa
Claus.
Thank you so much. It is really one of those really nice
things that happens for the County and people working so hard in
the public and private sector working together to make one of
our great facilities, the library, even more effective and
accessible to the citizens of this county.
Item #11A1
Page 17
December 12, 2000
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AD HOG
COMMITTEE TO ASSESS THE CURRENT AND FUTURE
ELECTORAL NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY'S CITIZENS AND THE
ELECTORS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - APPROVED
Now, we're going to move to the next item, which is the
elections -- supervisor of elections. There was a time certain
and who will be representing the department?
She is stepping forward. Faye, if you would address us on
that issue, please.
MS. MANSFIELD: Good morning, Commissioners. As you
know, Jennifer Edwards is in our new supervisor training session
in Tampa and she is very sorry she cannot be here with you
today. However, upon notice from the Supreme Court she will be
here in three hours.
We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning
and we appreciate your giving us this early hour. At this time, I
would like to introduce Chuck Mulkey, who is the chairman of the
Democratic Executive Committee, and Mike Carr, who is the
chairman of the Republican Executive Committee. We also have
from our office -- excuse me -- Dave Carpenter is here and Larry
Lawrence, who is our tabulation vendor, if you all have any
questions.
And I will turn it over to them. I'm sorry Liza McClanahan is
also here from the Democratic committee.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What you're asking and recommending
to us this morning is the establishment of this ad hoc committee
to come back to us at a later point with input in terms of how you
think we need to further address the electorial process in Collier
County.
MS. MANSFIELD: Yes. We will be moving forward with this
in the next few months. However, we will probably be moving
not as quickly as some people would like. We expect a lot of
legislation on a Federal level and a State level that will affect the
equipment that we will be allowed to purchase in the future.
But we would like to get started, form the committee, see
what's out there, stay in close touch with our legislators to see
what is coming down the road. But we want to be proactive in
this because we know that there are changes coming.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would just like to add, having
Page 18
December 12, 2000
served on the canvassing board, I hope that this is going to be a
broad scope. That you're not just going to look at voting
machines, but the space requirements over there. There is a
problem with -- in my mind, I would say that there is a space
problem with accessibility. So that your scope of this committee
that you will appoint the members to is broad enough to address
all of the issues that need to come back to the County
Commissioners.
MS. MANSFIELD: We will be not only equipment, but we'll be
looking at staffing requirements, space requirements. We have
many things to address as a result of -- our office has finally
come to the forefront because of this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. MANSFIELD: We don't really like the circumstances, but
we appreciate the attention.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that everyone needs to
understand that the supervisor of elections is a constitutional
officer elected by the citizens of Collier County or -- in every
county as a supervisor of elections. And that constitutional
officer comes to us. We provide space and funding, approve their
budget, but they are an independent constitutional officer.
Therefore, it is under their guidance and direction which they
make the recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners.
We, the Board, do not make those recommendations. They
come to us because of the fact that they are a constitutional
officer and that's their charge to do that.
Having said that, Mr. Carr, Mr. Mulkey, any comments that
you would like to make to us or other members of your group this
morning?
MR. CARR: We just want to make sure that every vote gets
counted in Collier County. Right, Chuck?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get a little dittos. It's a
challenge.
MR. MULKEY: If it pleases this honorable Board, I'm
pleased, along with my colleague, Liza McClanahan, our vice
chair, to endorse the executive summary and look for the
favorable consideration of the Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval.
Page 19
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I can just take one second to
say it is my first time on the canvassing board. I have never
been so impressed with the efficiency of an organization.
The details that they handle over there and the -- and the -- it
is overwhelming and they are protecting our most basic right.
And I just want to assure everybody that they are doing a
fabulous job.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would say ditto to that. Because this
is my first time as servicing on a -- serving on a canvassing
board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's incredible.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And it's an incredible experience. And
most people never pay any attention to it, don't even know what
a canvassing board does. And if we wouldn't have had a close
election, probably never would have known what a canvassing
board does.
So it has all been a great education in civics for all of us. So
thank you for being here and we look forward to hearing back
from you.
MR. CARR: Thank you.
Item #7A
REQUEST BY THE LIVINGSTON ROAD BEAUTIFICATION
ASSOCIATION AND COLLIER NAPLESCAPE TO PROPOSE THE
FUTURE CREATION OF A LIVINGSTON ROAD TAXING DISTRICT
TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS ALONG LIVINGSTON ROAD -
STAFF TO SOLICIT REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS AND REPORT
BACK TO THE BOARD
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Moving to Item 7, public
petitions, (A), request for Livingston Road Beautification
Association.
MR. OLLIFF: I believe the representation is being provided
this morning from Neil Dorrill.
Page 20
December 12, 2000
MR. DORRILL: Good morning, Commissioners. Merry
Christmas. On the wall next to me -- and hopefully the camera
can pick this up for the balance of the audience and those who
are watching at home. I'm here today on behalf of two private
groups, both the Livingston Road Beautification Association and
also the Collier Naplescape Groups, to briefly present to you in
the hopes that this can come back as part of a future or regular
agenda item a proposed project that would be the largest
beautification project not only in the history of Collier County,
but as far as we can tell, on the entire west coast of Florida.
What these two groups are intending to do with your
blessings is to create a taxing district that would provide the
source of matching funds to do both median and streetscape
improvements for the entire ten mile corridor of Livingston Road
that would run from the south on Radio Road, across the new
bridge and the main Golden Gate canal, and north all the way to
the Collier/Lee County line. A ten mile project for which
conceptual designs have already been paid for by the private
sector.
And this Board on November the 14th reviewed and
approved a conceptual policy document on how projects like this
could go forward. And these two groups are ready to go forward
and you have authorized your staff to solicit proposals from
landscape design consultants to take the conceptual plans and
to convert them into what, frankly, will be the most beautiful
parkway on the entire west coast of Florida stretching for ten
miles and through three county commission districts. And I think
all of us feel and recognize the importance of the future
Livingston Road, but we want it to be the type of asset for which
our community would be proud.
I think there are two things that are important to mention.
The first is the streetscape component of what it is that these
groups want to do. I think this plays into some of the
recommendations that we have seen from the Dover Cole study
that in addition to just spending your money and creating an
asset for the community and the medians, that you can build a
more attractive parkway-type road by incorporating streetscape
specimen trees on the sides of the road so that at maturity they
create a canopy effect and add to the beautification of the
parkway in this particular instance.
Page 21
December 12, 2000
Our request is simple. We recognize today that a public
petition cannot have any binding action, but we would very much
appreciate it if you instruct the County Manager to prepare a
regular agenda item and to work with these two groups and bring
this back at a more appropriate time for your deliberation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, Commission Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Dorrill, the -- who is going to
pay if the MSTU is created?
MR. DORRILL: That is one of the things that would need to
be determined. Thus far the two groups that are, frankly, made
up of large family-based property owners along the corridor
recognize that they derive an immediate benefit by being
adjacent or contiguous. And our proposal through your staff will
need to be developed. And they may elect to look at several
scenarios for you, but our proposal would be that any adjacent
property owner along the ten mile corridor obviously derives a
benefit from that and that would be a starting point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I would move, Commissioner
Mac'Kie, that we give staff direction to the County Manager to
work with these groups and come back to us with a proposal. I
think it's -- I know some of the work that has already been done
on this. I think it is an outstanding project for this County. A
true public/private partnership working at its best.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.}
MR. DORRILL: Thank you. We'll see you soon.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
Item #7B
REQUEST BY LEONARD WISNIEWSKI REGARDING PURCHASE OF
A TRAILER AT THE COUNTY AUCTION - STAFF TO WORK WITH
MR. WISNIEWSKI
The next petition that we have this morning is a request by
Leonard Wisniewski regarding the purchase of a trailer at a
Page 22
December 12, 2000
County auction.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: My name is Leonard Wisniewski. About
four years ago I purchased a trailer at one of auctions that the
County holds. I was never delivered a title for that trailer. And in
the process going from one place to another to finally get it, I
accumulated expenses.
So I sued the County Manager for $1,500. The judge told me
I couldn't sue the County Manager, I had to sue the person that
gave me the money. So I sued the auctioneer. Went to court
again and he said, "You can't sue him. He's working for the
County."
So he advised me that you have to sue the County
Commission. But he said, "Go talk to them before you do
anything further." That's why I'm here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there another side to this
story, Mr. Olliff?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Olliff, would you like to comment
on this scenario?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we deliver or attempt to
deliver title to this gentleman?
MR. OLLIFF: If you want to go ahead and have the
discussion today, I'll ask Steve Carnell, our purchasing director,
to come up and give you the background on it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Frankly, I'm not -- it sounds like --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we in litigation on this or is
this all settled?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. This is all at the point where it
could go that way.
MR. WEIGEL: It is not settled, but we aren't in litigation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. WEIGEL: I said it is not settled, but we are not in
litigation at the present time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would just hope that he could
work with staff and whatever staff thinks is appropriate, we'll go
forward. We can't get into every $1,500 dispute on the County
Commission level I don't think.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. And the purpose today is we
either have to give staff direction to work through this. This is
not -- if it comes back as an agenda item, we can have a
Page 23
December 12, 2000
discussion on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I know
the procedure of the auctions is the auctioneer says as-is
condition. So, you know, if this trailer never had a title, then
what he's -- what Mr. Wisniewski is asking us is to deliver a title
that we don't have.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Well, he said he would deliver a title, but
he said that the County would deliver title, in which they never
did after talking to somebody in finance, a tax collector, County
Manager.
MR. OLLIFF: You didn't talk to me.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Assistant County Manager. Really, the
judge was wrong. The auctioneer was at fault. He should have
never sold that trailer if he didn't have the proper ID to sell it.
But that's -- they ruled that way, so I have to come to the County
Commission to be reimbursed for my damages.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I would just respectfully say,
please, work with the staff. And if they can, they will provide
relief. But if they can't, then we would have to say that that is
what the court system is for.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: I thank you.
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 2000-462, RE PETITION SNR-2000-06, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM WEST AVENUE IN
THE PINE RIDGE SUBDIVISION TO WEST STREET - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Moving to Item 8(A), but
that has been continued to January 9. Now we're getting close
to -- can we take the two transportation items at this point?
We are pretty close. Ten 'til. We really need to -- can we
work -- how many people do we have on the street name change?
MR. OLLIFF: Not that many.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Thank you.
*** Let's go to Item 8(B)(2), which was formerly 16(A)(3), in
regards to the street name change West -- we had two West
Avenues, I believe, and we can only have one.
Mr. Nino.
Page 24
December 12, 2000
MR. NINO: Good morning. Ron Nino, for the record, from
your community development staff.
The petition that is before you caused the name of -- to
eliminate the duplication of two streets that are called West
Avenue. Our staff did meet -- the first West Avenue as the
executive summary identifies is one located in the Bonita Shores
plat. And this is the -- this is a latter use of the word West
Avenue. And, consequently, it was the one that staff determined
ought to be changed to eliminate the duplication.
To be changed to what, Ron?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. NINO: West Street.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
my house.
MR. NINO: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
weren't duplicating it.
Because West Boulevard is near
So I wanted to be sure that you
MR. NINO: In the opinion of staff, it's the least painful of the
modifications because the addresses will remain the same. The
only thing that will change will be West Avenue to West Street.
This comes to our attention by virtue of the North Naples Fire
Department, which, as our executive summary points out, has
some cause for concern inasmuch as in the recent past they
have, in fact, sent emergency vehicles to the wrong street.
We have an ordinance that provides for the elimination of
this duplication and that authority is -- sits with this Board.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And the homeowner's association has
agreed to that in Pine Ridge, as I understand it, from your --
MR. NINO.' Correct. And during the period of time that we
submitted the executive summary, we received letters in
opposition. Consequently, it was moved to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have any speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ron, I noticed in the summary that
it stated that the North Naples Fire Control had written you a
letter back in January asking that actually the West Avenue in
Little Hickory in Bonita be changed because there were only six
residences on that street. Why did we decide to change West
Avenue in Pine Ridge, rather than the six residences in Bonita?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Because they had it first.
Page 25
December 12, 2000
MR. NINO: Because they had it first.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, are you ready to go to the
speakers?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Could we hear the speakers,
please?
MR. OLLIFF: The first speaker is Cheri Vaughn followed by
Robert Burrus.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we could have the second
speaker to come on up and sort of be on deck to sort of keep
things moving.
MS. VAUGHN: Hi. My name is Cheri Vaughn and I live on
West Avenue in Pine Ridge. I have been there for 17 years. The
lady next door to me has been there for 50 years. And she
strongly objects to the change of name, as I do, too, because it is
an expense. First, our titles, everything. It is an expense
everywhere we turn to change it.
In fact, from what my mailman tells me, the other West
Avenue is a Bonita Springs address. It is a finger into Bonita
Springs of Naples. And there are a lot more people on our street.
Even statute of limitations runs in seven years. We've had this
address for 50 years. I think we ought to be able to keep it. And
a lot of my neighbors feel very strongly of the same thing.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Robert Burrus, followed by
your last speaker who would be Ken Rodgers.
MR. BURRIS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Robert
Burrus. I live on West Avenue in Pine Ridge. I am a relatively
new member of the Naples, Collier County community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Welcome.
MR. BURRIS: Thank you. I moved here in March of this year.
I'm coming from Raleigh, North Carolina. I'm currently a faculty
member at Duke University in the Pratt School of Engineering. I
telecommute from Naples, along with my wife, at North Carolina
State University.
In any event, we became aware by virtue of the action
proposed by the County to change the street name from West
Avenue to West Street. There was a petition circulated by
concerned residents of Pine Ridge indicating concern for
changing the name. And the West Street was proposed, is my
understanding, as a compromise so that the West stays the same
so to eliminate the duplication.
Page 26
December 12, 2000
We did become aware of this late in the game, so to speak.
And when contacting local staff members, it appeared to us in
the responses that there was really no alternative to changing
the name of the streets.
There are a number of individuals on -- in both -- excuse me,
in Pine Ridge that would be adversely affected. The first speaker
indicated some of the impact. What I would like to do today is to
propose -- be constructive in the debate and propose a low cost,
low impact alternative to changing the street names. My
understanding, cursory as it is from the statute, is that it is not
required to change a street name by virtue of the conflict that is
before the Board. However, in order to eliminate duplication and
other inconsistencies within an addressing scheme that the --
this particular action was proposed.
Specifically, the proposal I would like the Board to consider
is renumbering the West Avenue section in Bonita Shores to be
consistent with the current numbering scheme for streets. And I
would suggest that that could be accomplished by adding the
number 25 as a prefix to the current addresses in the address
range in the Bonita Shores West Avenue.
This would be relatively low impact. As the first speaker
indicated, there are a small number of people affected in the.
Bonita Shores area. I physically visited the area in question and
there are, by my count, seven addresses that would be adversely
affected. And in Pine Ridge there are, by my count, 55 addresses
that would be affected.
There are more, of course -- of course, there are more plats
that would be affected, but they are on corner lots and so forth
and they are not -- actually would not be adversely affected. The
cost associated with making this change to the existing proposal
before the Board is minimal from the standpoint of impact upon
the County. We would have no signage to have to reconsider for
either Pine Ridge or the area affected in Bonita Springs.
The addressing scheme is not inconsistent. The U.S. Postal
Service already recognizes the distinction by virtue of the fact
that the Bonita Springs area was addressed consistent with the
Bonita Springs addressing scheme many years ago and the
Naples address of the Pine Ridge area is consistent with the old
numbering scheme and addressing scheme there. So there is no
addressing conflict.
Page 27
December 12, 2000
The public interest, I believe, would be served quite well by
maintaining, if you will, the status quo of the West Avenues from
the respective communities. There would be no requirement to
change the maps in the local areas, which would generally arise
public confusion. For these reasons and others, I would
respectively request the Board consider instead of adopting the
proposal before it, that it is time to change West Avenue in Pine
Ridge to West Street in Pine Ridge, to consider simply
renumbering the street West Avenue in Bonita Shores.
And one other piece of information, both West Avenues are
north/south. They run generally north/south. They are detached.
And for the record, there are several instances, as I understand
from the County staff, of existing streets with the same names
that are not physically coincident. Thank you very much for your
consideration.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. RODGERS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Ken Rodgers, Assistant Chief of North Naples Fire Department.
We have a dilemma here and we're not -- we really don't care
about how we go about getting this taken care of.
I guess our concern is -- what brought this up back in
January is we had two calls on West Avenue. With the new CAD
system that the County has put in, it will not recognize two West
Avenues with the same street addresses. So what it did was
that it sent us to Little Hickory Bonita Shores and we come to
find out that the emergency was in Pine Ridge. So we have
everything moving north approximately nine miles when the
incident was down in the south end of the district.
I agree with the gentleman here. We talked to the people in
Pine Ridge. We asked them to go ahead and either come up with
West Street or change their numbering to either 6000, 7000, 1000
and they agreed to go with the West Street, instead of the
numbering change. Now I hear that he would like to go to Bonita
Shores Little Hickory and do the same thing. So I'm afraid in
another month from now we are going to be here again with the
people from Little Hickory Bonita Shores saying, "We don't want
to change our numbering."
And, I guess, our question was at the beginning -- and by my
letter to all of you -- is let's go with the least people being
affected by this. But with the County ruling, whoever has it first
Page 28
December 12, 2000
is the one that gets to keep it or unless, I guess, you people can
go ahead and change that particular ruling. So at this point we
do not care, but we need to have something done as soon as
possible because right now the people in Pine Ridge is not going
to be able to get police, fire or EMS services because it's going
to kick it straight up to Bonita Shores.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's nothing in the packet
that says that the Pine Ridge Association, which I am not even
aware that there really is one --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Homeowner's association, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do we know that they have
approved it? I mean, it says the homeowner's association
elected to change the suffix. It says that in the staff report.
How did we get that information? That may be a question
for Mr. Nino. Did we meet with them; did they vote? How do we
know?
Do you know that, sir? Whoever knows.
MR. RODGERS: Yes. We had a meeting with those folks.
They called a meeting at the Covenant Presbyterian Church. And
we had a meeting there and we discussed this for about two and
a half, three hours.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. How many people showed up?
MR. RODGERS: I think there was around 45.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's pretty darn
substantial. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other questions by commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for Mr. Nino. We don't
want to set precedence here. Are we setting precedence if we
change the numbering system of West Avenue in Bonita Shores?
MR. NINO: If you change the numbering system versus the
name?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The name.
MR. NINO: I don't believe that would be a precedent, no.
That would --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I might add on that.
MR. NINO: -- indicate --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just a second. Let him finish.
MR. NINO: -- what your preference is, but we still have to
Page 29
December 12, 2000
somehow or another eliminate as much as possible the duplicity
that's here. And that is -- takes a step towards doing that the
same as West Avenue versus West Street does.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Nino, I think what he's is asking is: Does
the current policy -- is there a written policy that indicates that
those who have the street name and/or numbers first are the
ones that we would consider leaving?
MR. NINO: No. That -- that -- those provisions are not
spelled out in that manner in the code. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
MR. NINO: The code simply says duplication.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' You could do it either way.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So if -- well, it says it has always been
-- if you had the name first, has that been the precedent? Do we
open the door if we change precedent from you had the name
first versus looking at numbers of people affected?
MR. NINO: Commissioners, I don't know how many times we
have changed street names for this reason. For the duplication
reason. I don't believe it has been very often. And in my 12
years with the County, I can only recall it on Collier Boulevard to
-- I mean, 951 to Collier Boulevard. And in that issue, of course,
there wasn't a first come, first serve issue there.
I don't ever recall us changing the street name with the
most recent one getting the benefit of the -- of the -- of retaining
the name.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does it cost any more to change the
numbers than the street name or is it the same? I mean, do you
still have to go through all the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's the same process.
MR. NINO: Well, of course, the numbers is a personal -- the
house holder needs to change that. The street signs the County
is going to do that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So how many residents; we only have
six in Bonita?
MR. NINO: I under -- I was -- I was of the impression that
there are eight whole -- eight properties that would be affected in
Bonita.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Eight properties in Bonita and
how many would be affected in Pine Ridge?
MR. NINO: Well, the speaker said 50. I have no reason to
Page 30
December 12, 2000
doubt that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know, do we have -- I would like
to know the numbers here. It's an interesting proposal made and
we wouldn't have any trouble either way, correct? It would solve
the problem either way.
MR. NINO: It would solve the problem either way, correct.
We don't have --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Since they're both in my district, I
can't win. So that's all right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will entertain a motion from the
Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I may just mention, it's going
to be a burden on the homeowners to change the number versus
the financial burden on the County to change the street name.
On the numbering system, they would have to change it on the
mailbox versus any change in Pine Ridge would be a burden on
the County of changing the street signs, which there is probably
two of them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility that the
fire department -- they have those numbers that they come up
with for residents. I know we have in Golden Gate and East
Naples. Where maybe the fire department might be able to help
these eight homeowners out with the new numbers on their
mailbox; the ones that come up to County code?
MR. RODGERS: Up in Little Hickory and Bonita Shores?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. RODGERS: Yeah. That shouldn't be a problem. We can
help them out with that. Also, they will have to put a number on
their house. So they would be needing two numbers. One for
their mailbox and one for their house.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we do that?
MR. RODGERS: I don't see a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
their titles or --
MR. RODGERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Will they have to change anything on
MR. RODGERS:
They will have to go through the same
They will have to do everything the same,
Page 31
December 12, 2000
whether they change the name of the street or the numbers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does anybody know what kind
of expense that is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have to do something.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have to do something. I don't think
it's -- I will entertain a motion from the Board. What is your
pleasure?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Flip a coin.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it would be easier to change
six or eight people's street name, West Street rather than West
Avenue, rather than 55. I would just hate to have the cost given
to one area over another. It seems that the Bonita people don't
really have a problem with the changing, whether it be street or
avenue. But I hate to have them incur the cost.
I wonder how much cost we're talking about. It seems to be
easier to change it to street over avenue than the numbers
because now you're talking, "Oh, street is easy to -- as long as
you see that Bonita and get there."
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You still have the same cost. You've
got 55 people in one area roughly and you've got eight people in
another area. No matter what you do, somebody is going to be
affected by this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go ahead and make a motion,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That we change the addressing
numbers on West Avenue in Bonita Shores --
COMMISSIONER FIAL.A: Numbers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Numbers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By adding the prefix 25?
MR. NINO: I didn't hear that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By adding the prefix 25; would
that be appropriate?
MR. NINO'. You certainly can do that. We appreciate this as
an advertised public hearing, so we would have to re-advertise it
and come back to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That is true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That doesn't --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Because they didn't even have a
Page 32
December 12, 2000
chance to participate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we can't make a motion then,
right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm actually going to move staff's
recommendation. I know this is -- you know, I guess you get a
little hardened after you have sat here for awhile knowing that
you have to make people unhappy sometimes and I'm sorry, but
this is a health and safety.
We need to act on this. We don't need to delay it because
otherwise somebody is going to have a heart attack and not have
the appropriate response. If somebody has a hardship paying for
the change, you know, then call me. I will help you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we -- could we ask -- while
you're asking staff to investigate, I really prefer the street name
changing it to West Street in Bonita, being that we only have
eight addresses.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You are not changing --
COMMISSIONER FIALA'. We can't make a motion to that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. No. We can't do that because
we'd have to re-advertise to get the Bonita Shores people up
here to let them know that we're going to do something to them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so I know that the people
who are here are going to be unhappy with me for making that
motion, but there were 45 people --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: First of all, I had a motion by
Commissioner Henning. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was the motion again?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: His was to change the prefix numbers
in Bonita Shores.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the response from the
County Attorney's Office or from Mr. Nino was that if that motion
passes, we have to re-advertise.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then we have a delay and then we
have a health and safety issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't vote on my motion. I
Page 33
December 12, 2000
agree from you --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You want to withdraw your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to withdraw it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He's withdrawing his motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now I will make mine again.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: His dies for a lack of a motion.
Okay. Do we have a second to that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-1 with staff
recommendation.
Items #8B2 & 8B3
RESOLUTIONS 2000-470 AND 2000-471 , RE COUNTY INCENTIVE
GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENTS WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR $3,640,000 IN STATE
MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE SIX-LANE IMPROVEMENTS TO
LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO PINE
RIDGE ROAD AND $5,915,000 FOR THE SIX LANE
IMPROVEMENTS TO IMMOKALEE_ROAD (RESPECTIVELY} -
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we get this done real quickly?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if we could move on to the
transportation items that were scheduled for 10:00.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Feder?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now we need to move to Items 8(B)(2)
and (3).
Peter.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission,
Page 34
December 12, 2000
Norman Feder, Collier transportation administrator. Pleased to
be here.
We had mentioned to you a while back that we're pursuing
IMPROVEMENTS TO LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD
some funding from the State under the County incentive grant
program. I am pleased to have in your package today the
paperwork to effectuate approximately just under $10 million in
grant monies under that County incentive grant program, 3.64
million for the section of Livingston Road six-laning from Golden
Gate to Pine Ridge.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Norm, can I interrupt you
because this is something that we have heard and we are so
grateful that we are getting this grant money? And I'd like to
move approval that we accept it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion includes all of the
staff's recommendations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- for (2) and (3), yes.
Norman, thank you for your efforts on this. We -- maybe the
listening audience doesn't understand what this means to us.
But what has taken place through the efforts of Norman Feder in
working on this is he has saved us millions of dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go, Norm.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So every time you see him, shake his
hand and say, "Hey, thanks, Norm. You did it for us." Thank you
for all of your efforts.
Item #8Cl
AMENDMENT TO WORK ORDER ABB-FT-00-06, WITH AGNOLI,
BARBER & BRUNDAGE, FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED
TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE
TO AUGMENT THE RECLAIMED WATER SUPPLY, PROJECT 74125
- APPROVED AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
That takes us to Item C-1, 16(C)(12). I have to dig through
my packet to see what that was. Somebody pulled it.
Page 35
December 12, 2000
Do you have that at the tip of your fingers, Mr. Oilill?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's amending a work order for
ABB, I think, Engineering --
MR. OLLIFF: That's the contract with Agnoli, Barber and
Brundage for the Mule Pen Quarry work.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for the
record, Jim Mudd, public utilities administrator.
This action is to amend a work order that we have a
standing contract. We have seven standing contracts right now
with AE Firms, none of which are hollow contracts as of last
year. They range from a total work order for the year last year
that went from 125,000 in one up to 476 -- 476,000 on the other.
And that's the first thing you check when you have standing
contracts to make sure none of them are hollow.
In this case, we start a new fiscal year. In that process,
ABB has worked the initial appraisal on the Mule Pen
supplemental irrigation source. You asked us in September to go
out there and find ways to augment our effluent -- our reclaimed
water irrigation system because we have contractual obligations
for 19.5 million gallons per day. And right now out of our sewer
plants we can only supply 16.5 million gallons per day during the
dry season. So we can't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've already authorized the
increase. I guess the question must be about the work itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no. The increased of cost.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. It's -- what we are basically asking here
is under the contracts they have a cap of $500,000 a year in
those standing AE contracts per contract. And the digestible
dose for the work order is a 90K cap. What we're asking right
here is for us to go above that $90,000 initial cap for each piece
of work as long as you don't exceed the 500,000. We haven't
exceeded the 500,000 total contract for these folks this year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. To me what it read was
we're going from $90,000 to a half a million dollars. So I would
just have to refer to my senior colleagues. If that's what you
approved was it half a million dollars or was it --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That was approved and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the contract itself from
ABB, right?
MR. MUDD: It's a contract that -- we're going out for
Page 36
December 12, 2000
additional work for this contractor. He came back with an
estimate that exceeded his $90,000 work increment. And the
contract says you can't.
The County Commission authorized the signing of the
contract. In order to deviate from that contract, we have to ask
your permission. And that's what we're asking for in here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're not deviating from the total
amount.
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
of the contract. They have not exceeded the contract amount.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you all. Then I'll
move to approve.
COMMISSIONER 'MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
We're only deviating from one section
Item #8B1
RECOMMENDED EXTERIOR BUS DESIGN AND COLOR, AND
SELECTION OF A GRAPHICS COMPANY TO PROVIDE A TROLLEY
DESIGN FOR TRANSIT SYSTEM BUSES - APPROVED
That takes us to Item D-8 -- 8(D), as in David.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to get you to back up a
little bit. I think we passed over Item 8(B)(1}, which was the bus
transit system --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The bus. Excuse me.
MR. OLLIFF: -- design.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
We've got to go back to 8(B)(1}, approval of the
recommended exterior bus design and color, and selection of the
graphics company to provide a trolley design for transit system
buses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if there is no
public speakers, I make a motion that we approve. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Turn that around so that it can
Page 37
December 12, 2000
be on the camera at some point.
MR. OLLIFF: And there are none.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There are no public speakers. There's
a motion for approval and a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's already been seconded,
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, is it? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can third it or fourth it, whatever
you like. That's fine.
Any questions by the Board? Seeing none, all in favor
signify by saying aye,
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It really looks lovely.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Great presentation. Love that bus.
Item #8D1
AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE AND ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD AND PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE FOR ADVERTISING
All right. Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Now we're down to 8(D), as
in David, (1), beach renourishment committee.
That was a pull from consent, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I just wanted to ask Vice
Mayor Joe Herms to come. He had a message from the City of
Naples City Council to us on that subject.
MR. HERMS: For the record, Joe Herms from the City of
Naples. I thank you for the short period of time to be able to
address you on this particular issue.
The Council had a discussion of this issue at our meeting
last Wednesday. And there was a motion passed and I was
asked to bring that particular motion to the County
Commissioners today. Basically the motion was to have me
attend the Commission meeting and declare to you that the City
Council objects to any change that would dilute its membership
on the beach committee.
Page 38
December t2, 2000
In addition, the motion also had the request that our City
Manager contact the County Manager and request a
postponement to allow the City staff to research the issue. And
then if that was denied, to send a formal correspondence to the
County Commission and ask to have me come and address you
today.
So basically that's our position. We would like to continue
the maintenance of this committee, which, I believe, was set up
in 1992. Initially it was set up as a City committee and later it
was amended to be a function as a County/City committee with
resolutions on the City and the County in its design. And at this
point in time, of course, the recommendations to you is to
basically do away with this existing committee and put into
place a new committee, which would incorporate three members
from Marco, three members from the County, and three members
from the City. I think one of the options that City Council had
discussed at our meeting was simply the addition of the three
members from the City of Marco on the present committee.
Any questions that you may have?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to say though --
following on the bus picture that we just saw and considering
that that we've had such bad communication experience with
the City of Naples City Council on the buses, I would hope we'd
learn from that mistake and continue this item to allow the City
Council to have time to have their staff look into it. It may be
after they look into it it's not something that they object to, but
they have asked for that time.
Unless there is some time crisis, Mr. Olliff, I wish we would
give them that courtesy. Is there a crisis?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before we do that, I would like to hear
from staff on their rationale for how they arrived at the make-up
of this new committee and perhaps that will answer questions. I
am not saying we shouldn't defer it, but I think we need to have
that input from staff.
MR. HERMS: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. Leo
Ochs, public services administrator, for the record.
Staff had been asked to evaluate some changes in the
composition of that committee for a couple of reasons. First and
Page 39
December 12, 2000
foremost was the advent of the City of Marco Island and a formal
request that came from Marco Island through our County
Manager's office for a greater proportionate share of the
membership on that committee. So as the staff began to
evaluate that request, we also looked at different criteria upon
which we could base a recommendation for membership.
And let me just back up real briefly and say that today all we
are asking for is authorization from the Board to move forward in
conjunction with the County Attorney to bring a draft ordinance
back to the Board for its ultimate consideration probably in late
January or early February. So we're not asking you to adopt
anything this morning. We're only asking for authorization to
proceed to put the draft ordinance together.
As the executive summary does indicate, however, we do
have some recommendations in mind for the membership. Nine
members, instead of 11. Part of the rationale, just from an
operational standpoint there, is that there is difficulty from time
to time getting a quorum with 11 members. So to add more than
that I think would create additional problems perhaps getting a
quorum. We thought nine was a more manageable number.
And as we looked at the length of shoreline of beaches that
need to be maintained or renourished from time to time, between
those three entities we found that there was roughly the same
number of lineal miles of beach front in the City of Marco Island,
the City of Naples and in the unincorporated areas of Collier
County. So looking at that as a benchmark, the staff had
recommended three members from each of those governing
bodies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was this --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- item brought to the beach
committee?
And when was it, if it was?
MR. OCHS: Yes. I know that the current beach committee
had discussed this issue on two separate occasions. And I
would ask Ms. Ramsey perhaps to give you the exact dates. I
don't know them right offhand. But I know that they talked about
that on two separate occasions. I'm going to ask Maria to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did they make a
recommendation?
Page 40
December t2, 2000
MR. OCHS: No. I'm going to ask Maria to go over those
recommendations.
MS. RAMSEY: Good morning. For the record, Maria Ramsey,
department of parks and recreation.
On .March 1998 there was a recommendation brought to the
beach committee to discuss restructuring the committee. At
that point in time the motion read to recommend that the Collier
County Commission and the City Council that this committee be
comprised of t I members, four of which would be from
Naples/Park Shore, two from Marco Island, and five from Collier
County. And it was passed 6-0 to restructure at that time.
Then at later meeting in July 9th of 1998 they rescinded that
recommendation. And at that point in time it was recommended
that the committee contain the 11 members, six from the City of
Naples, five from Collier County and that was seconded and
carried 6-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was six members there
out of 117
MS. RAMSEY: Six out of 11.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The amount of beach line or
coastline is about the same. MS. RAMSEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the most money is collected in
Collier County with about the same amount collected in Marco
and on Naples.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what you're doing is trying to
give it more of a fair three, three, three. Everybody has the same
amount of coastline and everybody just about gives the same
amount of TDC funds. Collier County actually giving more, but
we're relinquishing the extra seat so that everybody has a fair
three, three, three, right?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. And also to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seems to me it's pretty clear cut
and dry.
MS. RAMSEY: This being a technical board --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will we be getting some input from
the City as to what their concerns are as the staff meets?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. As a matter of fact, though, we have
actually met with the staff of the City, as well as the staff of both
Page 41
December 12, 2000
Naples and Marco Island. And this is brought to you as a
recommendation from all three of those staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, so staff from the City actually
concurred with this at the time; is that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. We had a meeting about two
weeks ago or three weeks ago where we developed the
resolution that we were going to bring originally to have you
disallow the other resolution and put this one into effect. And
then we found out we had to do it as an ordinance. So today
we're here instead of a resolution asking you to allow us to draft
the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: By draft -- as I understand this, is to
draft an ordinance which has to come back, which still gives the
City the opportunity to comment on --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Marco to comment also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And Marco, too. Everyone still has an
input. It's just the drafting phase of an ordinance with this as
being the framework of which you're proposing that it come back
to us.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to make a motion to
accept as is. We are still going to be working with the City and
we're still going to be working with Marco, but let's move
forward on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I will second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So my motion is to move forward on
this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion and I have a second
and --
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you do have an additional
registered speaker. And Bill Moss, the City Manager from Marco.
MR. MOSS: I'll defer comment at this time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moss.
Any further discussion on the Board?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
Page 42
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-1.
All right. How is my reporter doing? You're fine, okay.
Item #8G1
RESOLUTION 2000-463, ESTABLISHING A SERIES OF POSITION
STATEMENTS ON KEY ISSUES EXPECTED TO BE ADDRESSED BY
THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
CHAIRMAN TO PRESENT SAME TO THE LEGISLATIVE
DELEGATION AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING ON JANUARY 17,
2001 - ADOPTED
That takes us to Item E, which we have 16(L)(2), which was
a pull by -- I believe, it was the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' 16(L)(2)?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We are on 8(E) -- well, one was
deleted, but it would now be -- the item was 16(L)(2) is what I
jotted down. Am I correct on that?
MR. OLLIFF: No. That item, 16(L), moved to Item 9(E).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. 9(E). I stand corrected.
So we're to the County Manager. Am I correct, Mr. Olliff, on
this agenda?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. County Manager, (G)(1).
MR. OLLIFF: Item 8(G)(1) is a recommendation that the
Board approve two items. One is a resolution which is included
in part of your change order package that was provided. That
resolution does a couple of things.
One, it provides a number of support positions that the
Board of County Commissioners would ask that the County's
legislative delegation take in Tallahassee supporting a number of
what Florida Association of Counties established as some of
their primary positions at their legislative days meeting in
Tallahassee in November. But at the beginning of the resolution
were a number of more local related items that I will briefly walk
you through.
And should you have any question, we've got the specific
division administrators here who submitted these for any
information that you might need from them. But primarily there's
Page 43
December 12, 2000
a number of key categories. The first is a number of library
issues.
There is always continued questions as to the continued
State support for a library grant and aide program, which is
significant in terms of local funding because Collier County last
year generated over $340,000 from the State funds that help us
to do operations for our local library. So obviously we would like
to see our legislative delegation continue to support that effort.
But the most important thing probably to note for your
interest in the library issues is a specific request for $102,000 in
funding for a branch expansion in the Immokalee community.
The Immokalee branch library is the last of your 6,000
square-foot branch libraries that has the opportunity to be
expanded. The East Naples branch is still at that size, but we
are landlocked there and don't have that opportunity. So
Immokalee is the only other branch library that we have the
opportunity to actually expand. We're asking for some state
additional funding for that.
We're looking for some State funding to help us continue
with our efforts at the Southwest Florida Horticultural Learning
Center, which is the learning gardens project at the extension
office halfway between here and Immokalee on Immokalee Road.
We are looking for a couple of revisions to the State statutes in
regards to both per diem rate and tuition reimbursement. I think
those issues are fairly self-explanatory that are in the resolution.
And those haven't been looked at in a number of years.
We're looking for some additional support for what we call
indexing of local option gas taxes, which helps to increase the
local option gas tax as is the State gas tax. But somehow in
statute that's not provided for local gas taxes.
And then, lastly, we start getting into those Florida
Association of Counties items. I think you are, as a Board, fairly
familiar with that having attended the Florida Association of
Counties meeting.
The last item that is there is a bill, which is a bill which
would amend a special act for Collier County. And for those
commissioners who are here from previous discussions on this
item, you recognize that a number of items that we want to do in
Collier County require that this special act be amended. The
previous Board did vote and direct staff to proceed with the idea
Page 44
December 12, 2000
of a hearing examiner.
This bill will provide the amendments to the special act in
Tallahassee that will allow the Commission to consider that.
And so I do want to make clear for the record that the bill in front
of you if supported would be sent to Tallahassee. If approved in
Tallahassee, it would give this Board the option to consider a
hearing officer type program. And we have not had a discussion
with this Board in terms of what types of items would be heard
by a hearing officer, but because the opportunity to have things
considered by the legislative delegation is only once a year, we
felt it important that the Board consider that at this time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I would just respectfully ask
the balance of the Board to please support that request and keep
an open mind on the hearing officer. I know there's been some
public debate about it. We've needed to look at this process in
Collier County for quite awhile to try to take the politics out of
some of the development process. And that's what this has the
opportunity to do, if we do it right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I couldn't agree with you more,
Commissioner Mac'Kie. It's an issue that we really need to look
at and this gives us the opportunity to do it. It does not mean
that we say yea or nay. It says that we don't want to close the
window on the opportunity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion to
approve the transmittal of all of those items to the legislative
delegation on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Comment.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have an opinion on a
public hearing officer, but I think that if the opportunity arises for
us to get into the discussion, we should take all those
opportunities that we can.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. There are two
registered speakers. And I'm assuming included in the motion is
some approval for the chair to present this legislative delegation
package at the hearing on the 17th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
Page 45
December 12, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Your two speakers in order are Bruce
Anderson. And followed by him would be David Ellis.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I'm
a local land use attorney and I wanted to speak to the special
act that you all were just discussing and the hearing officer
concept.
You might be -- you might have heard more public comment
on this if it had not been added to the agenda just this morning. I
have no objection to the hearing officer concept. And I think it
may be, you know, worth a try. But if the purpose of the hearing
officer is to provide an objective fact-based decision based on a
detailed written record, then the hearing officer's decision ought
to be accorded some weight as it comes to you as a
recommendation.
But the way that the special act is structured today that you
have before you, the hearing officer is merely an expensive
substitute for the planning commission. And despite the fact
that you go through a lengthy hearing process and put on a lot of
evidence in order to get an objective, fact-based decision from
the hearing officer, his decision carries no special weight when it
comes to you all. So it doesn't really remove any politics out of
the process.
I would suggest to you that if you are going to try the route
of a hearing officer that a four-fifths super majority should be
required to overturn a hearing officer's decision, but not to
uphold his decision. In other words, you shouldn't require
four-fifths if you're going to uphold the hearing officer's decision.
Otherwise, all we've done is simply add time, cost, and another
new County employee to the process and really haven't improved
it at all.
I would respectfully suggest to you that you amend the
sentence that begins at the bottom of page eight and continues
at the top of page nine to require a four-fifths super majority to
reverse the hearing officer's decision. And otherwise leave it or
have it that a majority of you would uphold his decision would
only be necessary. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. ELLIS: Good morning. I'm David Ellis with the Collier
Building Industry Association. And I wanted to start by saying
Page 46
December 12, 2000
happy holidays and hope that everyone enjoys the season.
I didn't really come this morning to agree with Mr.
Anderson's assessment. We're very much in support of the
hearing officer concept. I came here as many of you know from
Jacksonville, Florida where two years prior to this we spent a lot
of time actually implementing this very same process.
And it was done to do exactly what you have talked about.
To try to remove the political environment that can swirl around
many of these issues and bring it into a more objective
framework.
And the hearing officer can very well do that. I raised a
really-- I would like to raise the same concern that Mr. Anderson
did. If we don't do something through the legislative -- through
this process to add greater weight to the hearing officer's
decision, really what we do is that we go through that process
and then come to you all and you all have got to make the same
decision again. Although, I would assume as a Board, you would
give weight to that, the way this really reads at this point is that
it doesn't add that type of weight or that type of authority to that
decision made by the hearing officer.
What Bruce recommended may be a good thing to do. If all
this did was go to the State and came back to us with the idea
of, hey, hearing officer is great. We'll flesh it out locally. And I'm
sure we'll have these discussions again. That would be fine. But
the way this reads it actually keeps that four-fifths majority in
there. I think that is going to really tie your hands in regard to
what we want to be able to do with the hearing officer in the
future.
So, again, I appreciate you ali's concern and you ali's
thoughts on this today. And I think that if we do the
recommendation that Mr. Anderson presented, it might add the
correct flexibility to what you really want the hearing officer to
achieve. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just say in response, I'm not
willing to do anything at the get-go to reduce the four-fifths
majority. That has been a very controversial issue in this County.
I want to see the hearing officer succeed. And I'm afraid if we --
if we weaken that, it's going to be perceived as something other
than what we're intending to do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mulhere.
Page 47
December 12, 2000
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere, planning services
director.
Just for the record, obviously our proposal is to retain the
four-fifths majority vote in the special act. That's certainly
something that we could look at as we unfold the hearing
examiner process and as we move forward. I do, for the record,
have to disagree with Mr. Anderson's -- what I believe is an
oversimplification of a comparison without a -- without amending
the super majority vote, then the hearing examiner process is
useless. I certainly don't agree with that. I strongly disagree
with that, as a matter of fact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I did make a motion already I
think to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I will second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Discussion?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time. This is -- the
four-fifths rule that we're talking about, that would come up
again later or if we don't include that now it's lost.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have to include it now to be --
well, we can take it out and discuss it later, but I think we
shouldn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, according to Bob Mulhere,
they're going to be discussing it anyway.
MR. MULHERE: Right. In order to -- at this point, if we move
forward as we've got it structured, we would again, down the
road, implement a hearing examiner program if the Board so
desires to do that, review this issue. And at some point we
would have to go back in and amend the special act again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. MULHERE: But at that point, we may have a track
record where we've demonstrated that this process will or will
not work better with or without the super majority. We haven't
fleshed those issues out at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the first year we're stuck with
the four-fifths.
MR. OLLIFF: And I would suggest to you that given the
history of this -- and for some of the new commissioners who
aren't aware, I am not sure that the legislative delegation will
Page 48
December 12, 2000
support it frankly --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Without.
MR. OLLIFF: -- without having that four-fifths left in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm a great believer of never fixing
anything if it isn't broken anyway. So let's move forward.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would agree. All in favor of the
motion signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you may want to take a short
break, but I do want, before you do that, to let you know that you
have about 25 registered speakers on the Bayshore Gateway
item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since somebody has confused
them and made them think that we're doing something we're not
even thinking of doing today. But we'll straighten that out when
we get to it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. And that's going to be -- all
right. We have a number of issues before we get there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should we try and fix that?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're going to take ten minutes and
we'll be right back.
(A short recess was held.)
Item #9A
REPORT ON STATUS OF AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN
COLLIER COUNTY V. MARSHALL, ET AL., CASE NO. 99-2009-CA-
T, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT
(PRESCRIPTION EASEMENT CLAIM FOR MILLER BOULEVARD
EXTENSION) - STAFF TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE WITH AN OPEN
TIME LIMIT, PERMIT TO FILL POTHOLES, AND TO KEEP ROAD
OPERATIONAL FOR HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ALL
RESIDENTS AND IF THIS CANNOT BE RESOLVED, THEN FIGHT
THE ISSUE
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are we alive and well? We are.
Thank you. We are now at item -- County Attorney's Report,
Number (9)(A).
Page 49
December 12, 2000
MR. PETIT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Mike Petit, Assistant County Attorney.
I'm here today to report on the status of a lawsuit. The style
is Collier County versus Marshall. That lawsuit, as it indicates in
the executive summary, was filed pursuant to some Board
direction in 1997 to attempt to establish what we believe is our
prescriptive easement over Miller Boulevard extension, which is
about a mile and a quarter of dirt gravel road and it's near
southern Golden Gate Estates that eventually connects between
41 and Miller Boulevard.
The Board acted in July and September of 1997 and directed
staff and the County Attorney's Office to attempt to acquire this
easement first by gift. And if we couldn't acquire it by gift to
proceed to court to establish what at that time we believe we did
have a prescriptive easement, but just hadn't been judicially
acquired.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mike, can I interrupt you to say
that -- it's my recollection that the reason the Board gave that
direction -- I hope you are going to report this part, too -- is that
the acquisition process out in the area was moving so slowly
that we felt we had to do something to protect those property
owners to have some emergency access. As I understand it now
-- what percentage is complete? I know it is moving much more
quickly now.
MR. PETIT: Yeah. I was going to get to that. The Board
gave that direction, I think, for several reasons. One is that the
acquisition process was moving slowly. It was really unclear
what the State's plan was in the way they were going about
acquiring properties.
Now I think they have had an infusion of Federal money. I
have been to Tallahassee, met with the DEP people. And some
of the attachments in the executive summary show they've
acquired well over 15,000 of the approximately 19,900 parcels
that they need to acquire in this area. The ultimate plan, as
some of the attachments show, is to remove some of the roads in
that area, including Miller Boulevard itself.
Which, once I began to understand the plan and the fact that
the effort to acquire had intensified, I felt that I needed to come
back to this Board and advise it that that may have a significant
impact on the value of this lawsuit to the County. Because at
Page 50
December 12, 2000
some point, it appears to me -- I'm looking into the future -- that
there will be no place for Miller Boulevard extension to go.
I would like to hand to Chairman Carter to pass around to
the other members -- and I'm sorry I've only got one copy. This is
a map that I received from the DEP which is attached to the
package. But as you can see, it's a little more dramatic than the
black and white small photocopy and it shows the number of
parcels that have been acquired by the State.
MR. OLLIFF: Mike, if you could use the visualizer right there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think, Mike, you could probably do
that, if we can do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' They will help you. I know you're
a lawyer and it is high tech.
MR. PETIT: I can't do anything like this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. I couldn't run it
either, but they will help.
MR. OLLIFF: Just set it on there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: On the basis on what we've watched
over the last few days, Mike, we understand that.
MR. PETIT: I don't think it's -- it's a little too long, but you
can get some sense. The darkened areas are parcels that have
been acquired by the State.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And where is Miller Boulevard if
we were successful in our easement?
MR. PETIT: Where is Miller Boulevard what?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we were successful in
establishing the prescriptive easement, where would it be on this
map?
MR. PETIT: It would be -- actually, if you see where Miller
Boulevard is located on the map -- it is difficult to see. It's south
of that and it connects to 41.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. PETIT: That is a better picture that Bob has got. And I
think you can see my pen here.
area of the map.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Belle Meade for me, please?
MR. PETIT: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Belle Meade area?
I think it's in approximately that
Can you point out the North
Can you point out the North
Page 51
December 12, 2000
MR. PETIT: I am not sure it's shown on this map.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' It is quite a ways up.
MR. PETIT: I think it's north of this map.
In any event, simultaneously with discovery producing this
information, the court ordered us to go to mediation in the case,
which we did. There was an impasse. Although, the mediation --
it's not formally an impasse. The mediation has continued
among the attorneys.
And some settlement negotiations were had with some
potential settlement terms. One of the things that I want to
make clear today is I'm not here to recommend a settlement
because we don't have a recommended settlement at this point.
That is certainly one option.
But the terms I've included in the executive summary. And
I'd like to get some direction certainly from the Board on whether
we want to continue to pursue settlement discussions in light of
the State's project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The alternative would be what,
Mike?
MR. PETIT: The alternative would be to continue with the
litigation. And let me give you some history on that. There was
really two lawsuits.
The initial lawsuit, as a result of the Board's direction in
1997, was filed by Florida Wildlife. I filed a motion for summary
judgment in that lawsuit this past year and Florida Wildlife
dismissed the lawsuit, rather than proceed forward on it.
We also then filed this lawsuit where we're the plaintiff. The
County is the plaintiff. We sued 18 landowners, including the
State of Florida, Florida Wildlife and others. I think I've detailed
where we stand with that point.
If we continue on in the lawsuit, at some point we'd have to
have a trial to determine or unless -- I believe, frankly, that this is
potentially a summary judgment case. And if the judge would
agree with me, then we would have no trial and we would win. If
the judge doesn't agree with me, we'd have to have a trial to
determine whether we have a prescriptive easement or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Mike, if we win, what is the
effect of that on the Everglades restoration program or the Save
Our Everglades program?
MR. PETIT: Well, certainly the State would appeal any
Page 52
December 12, 2000
summary judgment or final judgment we won here. They're
determined to proceed forward with the program. It also may be
that if we won our prescriptive easement and we won all the way
through any court that it's appealed to -- and we all know how
many appeals we have now in our country as a result of the
elections.
But at the end of that process, it seems to me the State
would still have the ability to buy our prescriptive easement by
imminent domain. Now, I haven't fully researched that. But I
believe that they would have that power and they could do that
and the prescriptive easement may not have much value.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And let me just say one more
time, I -- the reason I voted .to go forward with this would have
been because we wanted to send a message to the State that if
you're going to drag our people around and not move forward to
either buy their property or leave them alone, we're going to
protect them with an access road. I think that message was
received by the State and that they have responded as we hoped
they would and now we could stop the prescriptive easement
process because we're just barking up a tree.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, really aren't we just trying to
negotiate a settlement to keep that road operable to serve our
people until those lands are bought? And that looks like about a
five-year window as I tried to get through all of this.
And isn't that where we really want to be is to negotiate to
do that, to make that work?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've done that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And then at the end of it, the road is
gone.
MR. PETIT: That certainly -- that certainly is one option in
that the five years, Chairman Carter, is a figure I kind of plucked
out of the air. And the State and Florida Wildlife have essentially
agreed to it in concept. But, again, there's no formal settlement
proposal before you. On the thought that the State is assuring
me that these roads will be -- all this acquisition will be done and
the roads will be removed before then.
Understand that if we would enter into a settlement where
we pick some arbitrary date, 2006, 2007, if that time comes and
goes and the State's not done -- and let me say that there is a
potential for that and here's why. I think the State is serious
Page 53
December 12, 2000
about trying to acquire these properties, but I think -- and you
will probably hear from some landowners today. There are
landowners that are going to resist that process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, can't we negotiate with them
that as long as that road is open we have a right to maintain it so
they have access? And if it takes two years, three years, ten
years, I really don't care as long as we have the people protected
on that right-of-way. And it's the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I want to see us do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Especially now with as dry as we
are and with the fire season coming up, I would hope that we
would protect those landowners and the environment around it
and the wildlife, as well, by making it accessible to these people.
And as I read in my summary, it's not going to cost that much to
keep that land -- that area open and accessible and it's not going
to be that much when -- you know, in the future, they might be
taking the road. I think we should move forward with this. I
would like to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well --
MR. PETIT: Let me comment on a couple of things.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let .... let --
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We've got a question from
Commissioner Coletta. And, Mike, you want to make a comment.
MR. PETIT: Let me make a comment. When you said,
Chairman Carter, a moment ago about maintaining, right now we
arguably we have no ability to maintain. And here's why. I
believe we have a prescriptive easement. I believe as an
advocate I could establish that in court.
Once we do that what we have is what is there. In order to
make modifications to that road, we're going to have to get
permits through State and Federal agencies, which is a whole
different process. And I can guarantee that if we do it
aggressively, as opposed to cooperatively by a settlement, that
there is no doubt that Florida Wildlife, if not -- if not the DEP, will
object to the issuance of the permits and that turns into
administrative litigation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we're not talking about
modifications. Aren't we just talking about filling holes and
making it--
Page 54
December 12, 2000
MR. PETIT: I believe that we would still need a permit for
that. At least that's what I'm told by our engineering.staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, two points I would like
to mention. If we put any kind of sunset -- any kind of date on
this one when it would end, what we are doing is we are, in
effect, telling these people that they better negotiate a deal as
quick as possible because there's not going to be any services
past that day. That would be wrong. I think it should be open
ended. That's my first thing.
The other thing that I have a real problem with -- and I know
it's not going to fly too well with this particular commission, I'm
sure. But I can't see the purpose of having public land with
limited, limited, limited access. It makes absolutely no sense.
If we're going to provide for the citizens of our County, we
have to make sure that the public lands out there remain truly
public.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Here, here.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you do have some registered
speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. Let's -- I think we need to go to
that. And then, perhaps, Mr. Petit, you can come back to us. And
I think we are all -- I think, Commissioner Coletta, we're all on
the same page.
As long as people are there, we want an access road to
provide the service for health, safety and welfare issues. The
day that that doesn't exist anymore, for whatever reason, then
we don't have a case. But in the interim -- and I don't want to put
a time limit on it to force anybody to have to do anything -- we
just want to find a way to work through this. And I'm not an
attorney, but I sure think there must be some way to negotiate
an arrangement with the State.
But let's go to public speakers. I don't want to -- we need to
hear those. How many do we have?
MR. OLLIFF: You have three. The first speaker is M.A.
Spencer followed by AI Perkins.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. If you're on deck, please be on
the on-deck circle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have a microphone you can use,
sir. Mr. Weigel has got it for you, sir.
MR. SPENCER: Mr. Chairman, Board members, I don't know
Page 55
December 12, 2000
just how to start. I'm not much at public speaking. But I am
quite disgusted with our State and also with the County. I've
been in this County since 1957 coming from the Korea War.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name, sir?
MR. SPENCER: The--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is on the record, sir. We need to
have your name on the record.
MR. SPENCER: I beg your pardon. It's M.A. Spencer.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. SPENCER: I was born and raised in Sarasota, so I've
lived in Florida all my life. The State has offered to buy my land.
I paid $3,900 for it about 16 years ago. They offered me $750 an
acre.
I've been paying taxes. The County Commission had
doubled my taxes year before last. This last time they added
7,000 more dollars to my taxes.
Now, I can't see fighting two wars for this country why they
want to take my land away from me. They took my land that I
had in Big Cypress. I don't want to lose land again. But we
worked on that extension to clean it up.
The judge issued an order that if we cleaned it up he would
let us put culverts in and regrade it. It didn't work. I've signed
affidavits with the County Attorney of how long that I've been
using that road to go and come with a swamp buggy because it
is almost impassable for an automobile. Even four-wheelers
have trouble traveling on it.
I would love to see it. I've fought two fires out there. One
back in the '60s when might near all Collier County burnt. Our
camp was the only area that showed green if you flew over it.
This last fire we couldn't get to it to start our pumps and things
without running over the County deputies. They refused to let us
through. So we had to go way around and try to pull each other
through Miller extension to get to our camps.
And we've had those camps for over 30 years. We were in
there before Golden Gate was even established. We had to buy
the land from GAC to keep our cabins. We have four beautiful
cabins on stilts that is maintained. It's mowed and maintained
all the time.
So I'd love to see the extension at least graded so we can
use it. If they're going to close it -- and what I can't understand
Page 56
December 12, 2000
is how the State could come in and take a platted subdivision
and make a State forest out of it. It don't make sense to me.
How they can take and condemn a street when it's a public road.
I remember I was working for GAC when they went bankrupt
and they give the County $5 million to maintain the roads. I
understand the $5 million has been used up to pave the roads in
north of the Alley. So we're not getting the roads maintained
anymore. They did mow last month I believe it was. They did
mow all the paved roads south of the Alley, which we appreciate
it immensely.
But if you can, even though it's only for four or five years, I
would love to see us have some way to have emergency vehicles
come and go. It's hard to drive way around. They can't get off
the Alley to get in there. They have to come Golden Gate
Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard. They have to go 41 all the
way to Scenic Drive to get in. That's the two entrances and
that's it if we lose Miller extension. I thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many acres do you have, sir?
MR. SPENCER: Ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sir, how many acres do you have?
MR. SPENCER: I have ten in one plot and four in the other.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And these are being attempted to be
purchased from you through the State program?
MR. SPENCER: Only one. They have not bothered me on the
four. I don't know why. But they have bothered me -- they have
sent me two offers on the ten acres.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A little history of here. Originally the
CARL program -- and this gentleman is really referencing it
correctly. The offers made to landowners were, frankly,
ridiculous. And I think they have stepped up that process now
trying to get into a more equitable position. I'm not saying it's
there yet.
But that is -- that is the State of Florida versus the people in
that area. What we're trying to do is to keep the roads open to
service all of you as long as it exists. It may exist forever, but
we want that right to do that, sir. That's --
MR. SPENCER: Well, my understanding is that the County
owns the roads. And so how can they tear up a road?
If one person objects, they cannot take up one road. And I
plan on filing a suit. That sounds like I'm through. All right.
Page 57
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's all right.
MR. SPENCER: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Perkins will be your last speaker',
David Cuthbertson.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For somebody who didn't think
that he was a public speaker, you did a mighty fine job.
MR. PETIT: I have to add that Mr. Spencer has been a big
help to our office in this lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We thank him for that.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, you
people at home, Commissioners. That's right. I never forget to
do that because the people at home are sitting out there in
masses paying attention to what's going in this community --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, you are?
MR. PERKINS: -- and where their money is being spent.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, you are?
MR. PERKINS: I am AI Perkins representing Belle Meade
Groups.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. PERKINS: We haven't gone away. We are still here.
The cost came up. How much does it cost to dig up a road?
How much does it cost to fill in a canal, which I call a reservoir
for your water supply, okay?
Who is going to pay for this stuff? Because you people,
whether you know it or not, you're paying the DEP. You're paying
the Commissioners. You're paying the South Florida Water
Management and you're paying and you're paying and you're
losing your tax base, which amounts to $3 million a year in the
past.
So, in other words, when it comes down to putting in Miller
Boulevard extension, you have spent the money elsewhere over
on the beach, down on Marco, up in North Naples, even in Golden
Gate. You have spent their money out in the Belle Meade,
Southern Golden Gate Estates and the Fakahatchee.
I get a little bit warm. It's under the CARL program.
Conservation and recreation called the Picayune State Forest
and you can't get to it. You're not allowed to use it, but you can
pay for it. And if they float bonds, you can pay the interest on
Page 58
December 12, 2000
the bond.
Certain people can use it, such as M&H Stables. They have
40 stables and a small piece of property and they advertise you
can ride for hundreds of miles on horseback. And the
Department of Forestry says, "Come out and visit with us. You
can walk, ride. You can take and log, bicycle, kids, fires, picnics,
the whole five yards." But they never say, "Come on out in
hunting season." Instead of shooting down or shooting up, they
shoot horizontal. Anybody there can get hit and you can't see
200 feet down the line.
The Wildlife Federation, quote, unquote, Hunt Club has yet
to come out and say, "Stop the hunting south of the Alley." The
Conservancy never mentioned it. The Audubon Society never
mentioned it. Not one damn time. They had the opportunity, but
they were willing to ship your garbage to Pompano.
Where are these environmentalists? And if you're an
environmentalist, you're really going to get excited about the
environment. Get rid of the gasoline, get rid of the diesel fuel
and get rid of all electricity and send those people who live in air
conditioning back up the road where they came from. They're
here for money. Only money. And why not? Naples has plenty.
They're an easy touch. Look around you people.
Under this CARL program there is discrimination going on
big time out there. Florida Waters owns a section and has a well
field, which happens to be one of my neighbors, that is not on the
CARL list, yet it is east of the lands that the State owns and it is
west of Miller.
Now, when I talk about Marco Island and Goodland and all of
the new development, let's talk about how many people if we get
a hurricane -- and I shouldn't say if, it's when. Are you going to
take and count the bodies floating in the street?
You've got an evacuation route for those people and all the
new development along 41, including The Bound, Fiddler's Creek,
the whole five yards.
Now, I've been shouting this for years and I have told in
Tallahassee to the DEP. And I have it on videotape, which you
people know that I videotape damn near everything I say. Now, I
am not going to hold back with that. I'm going to go after the
DEP because right here in this room I have proven to the
Commissioners and everybody else that they lied -- bold-faced
Page 59
December 12, 2000
lied to the Commission about Marco Island airport in reference to
Janes Scenic Drive. Check your records.
Don't forget there's Barron Collier Development which
swings from 41 clear up to Sabal Palm Road. I guess I'm done, right?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need to wrap up, AI.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. I'll take and finish it up, okay? If you
don't do anything about Miller Boulevard, then I would suggest
that the people's families who get killed out there sue you, sue
the County and sue the State big time and even go after the
Federal government.
And we've got enough lawyers in this town that's capable to
do the job. Point being, your charge is to save lives, protect
property and make sure that you do your very best to take and
keep the status quo and not try to put anybody out of business.
With that, I'll conclude. Thank you. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Last speaker is David Cuthbertson.
MR. CUTHBERTSON: Thank you. My name is David
Cuthbertson. I thank you. I really appreciate you ali's position
there.
Perkins, I think they're on our side it sounds like. And I
really love that idea. I've been out there since 1976. My name is
David Cuthbertson and I live in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. But I've
been -- I built a two-story camp out in the middle of the whole
area there and I've been involved with this acquisition.
As a matter of fact, I've already sold the State some land.
They come up last year with a fairly good price. I was just last
week with the DEP appraiser who -- and I rode with him a good
bit. It looks like they're going to go in and make us a fair offer
this year or first part of next year and then go in to condemnation
if it's not fair.
So it looks like we're going to be imminent domain out there
and it looks like we're going to be gone. But maybe not. Maybe
they can prove it otherwise.
But the point is I think that your position in pressing on with
this access is very important. And in -- one reason, what Perkins
is talking about, is the evacuation route for Marco Island. If you
look at that seriously I think he has got a very strong point.
Page 60
December 12, 2000
And another thing, he says that they might be taking out
Miller Boulevard. I don't know about that because there is
reasons for having some of those roads in there for burn reasons.
And I don't know -- I don't think the design has been finalized~on
that. And I know that that road -- it wouldn't take much to do a
little filling there and grading it up and putting it in. They can
always take it back out.
But the Forestry Department has a road over there. They go
through there. They maintain it, but they keep a locked gate and
they won't let you go through it. So that's another thing.
And another thing is that the State really made a bad
mistake, I think, originally when they first started this
acquisition. I'm not putting the blame on anybody, but I worked
for DOT for ten years buying most of the interstate in South
Florida from '72 to '82. And I was sent over here back in '78 to
do an estimate -- cost estimate for 1-75. And we -- when we were
looking at that, that interchange or the access points there to
that dedicated roadway was they had rights -- the property
owners to the south had retained rights to that access to that
facility. And the State literally took that from the people. And I
think it took unfair advantage. And that was just lack of integrity
of the State official's part.
I hate to bring that up, but that's the truth. And I think that
they have -- they have bought most of it now under duress to the
property owners out there. And I really appreciate you ali's
stand on this.
But as far as the Miller Boulevard extension, I've been
traveling through there and it's really got a lot of potholes and it
sure would be helpful if you all would fix that little road up. I
don't think that the requirement on the permits and stuff for
filling it and grading it would be that much. It wouldn't be hardly
anything. And certainly the right-of-way, I've been traveling over
it for 25 years so it must be heavy by prescription. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you have any other speakers, Mr.
Olliff?
MR. MORERA: I got here late. Can I just speak for a
moment?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Have you signed up, sir?
MR. MORERA: No. I got here late.
Page 61
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, sign a slip real quick and come
to the microphone, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, while the speaker
is coming up I would like to say that I concur with my colleagues
that we need to protect the families and property. But we also
need to set our goals and that is to improve that road so we can
get emergency vehicles through there.
And what I'm hearing is is if we go in there full force that we
are going to get some resistance from the Corps or South Florida
Water Management, DEP. We need to find -- when we -- when
somebody makes a motion, we need to make sure that our
motives and our goals are set so that we can improve that road.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would agree.
Sir, if you will speak, please.
MR. MORERA: I am just going to be brief. My name is Justo
Morera. I own a nursery on Sabal Palm Road. Last year when we
had the real bad fires, I was out there battling the fires and the
fire trucks didn't have a way to get back to my property. So I
lost about $40,000 worth of plants.
This year I already got a bunch of plants started again. And
I would certainly hate to see that happen because I don't have
any other way to get to that property. Only through Miller Road.
Sabal Palm Road is done. I mean, the water gets about this high.
We try to get Sabal Palm Road to open up, which would have
been the easiest way, couldn't do it.
So if they close Miller Road, we're done. And the
government did offer me $2,500 an acre about four years ago. I
paid $3,600 an acre, plus interest for 15 years, plus the taxes.
And, I mean, that's just like plain robbery, you know. We can't let
that happen in this country.
It's just going to be like Castro in Cuba. I'm from Cuba.
That's why I left Cuba. I was raised here. (Applause.)
MR. MORERA: Where are we going to? That's the way it
starts. It starts like that. And then you can't control it no more.
I mean, I've got nothing else to say. I just wanted to let you
know, you know, that there is people out there that have bought
property there because they couldn't afford to buy anywhere
else. But then they never told me when I bought the land that it
was going to be taken from me. We bought it from a realty, Joe
Page 62
December 12, 2000
Thompson, he never mentioned me nothing that that was on the
CARL list or anything. I have no idea of that.
And, I mean, that's all my life. My wife and I work hard in
town and then we go out there every day. And, you know, we
have to do something about it, honestly. We have to put a stop
to that. They can't just -- it is like one day they might come to
your house and say, "We need your house. You got to get out of
here." It could happen. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Mr. Petit, do we have a
way to work with this so that we can -- I think what this Board is
saying is we want to protect and have accessibility, health,
safety and welfare issues for all the people there as long as it is
necessary to keep Miller Road extension open, operational. Not
only, as I am hearing for this area, but perhaps as an evacuation
route for Fiddler's Creek, Marco area. There's a purpose here.
Is there a way to work this through the negotiation legal
system without doing a black and white thing saying, "Well, we
either have to sue you and take you to the wall and to trial," or is
there a way to negotiate this so we can accomplish our
objectives until all parties are satisfied?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And including the right to
improve the road --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for -- I'm not talking about
asphalt. I'm talking about grading and pothole filling so that it is
a safe transit.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We've got to get fire trucks through
there. We've got to get EMS vehicles through there or Sheriff's
deputies or whatever it is. We've got to be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to keep the option
for asphalt open, too, to be honest with you. I think that we are
shortchanging this whole thing. And once we've got a road in
place, we've got it.
It's -- this thing has been played with too long. What's the
maximum we can do? How far can we go until we get to the
point where they're going to tell us, you know, the Supreme
Court and it's going to cost us a million dollars to stop it? Where
is the next level that we can take this?
MR. PETIT: Well, there's -- again, we are really at a fork in
Page 63
December 12, 2000
the road. We can pursue the litigation. To pursue the litigation,
if we operate on a worst case scenario, I don't get a summary
judgment, we go to trial. We have to hire experts to do various
kinds of studies out there.
I think I made some estimate that that could run into the 15
to $20,000 range. If we win at trial, I would anticipate Florida
Wildlife and the DEP would appeal. And there is also a wild card.
One of the parcel owners of the 18 claims to have sold his
property to the Miccousukee Indian tribe.
I don't know where that takes us. I haven't had any
negotiations with the tribe. I haven't been able to get a deed
showing that that transfer occurred as of yet. I'm assured that it
has.
So there are a lot of factors here. I would suspect that the
Miccousukee Indian tribe is not interested in having their parcel
flooded. I would assume they're going to want to do something
else with it. Our easement traverses that parcel. So those are
the wild cards in the litigation.
I think that it would be possible to settle the litigation and
accomplish the following. First, I think we could accomplish
what Commissioner Carter has pointed out. Because initially --
when we initially talked about this that's how we were talking
about it. Once the physical removal -- if and when Miller
Boulevard is ever physically removed -- the paved portion -- our
temporary use right is what the state would call it would lapse.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But until then we could improve
it and --
MR. PETIT: That would be the second prong. I think that we
could also accomplish -- the minimum we could accomplish
would be that they would agree that as long as we didn't raise
the elevation of the road that we could perform pothole filling
type maintenance and fill in depressions in the road. I don't
think that -- I think to get to grading would be difficult. I think if
we agree on those things, then they will say, "Okay. If you can
get a permit for it, great."
I have not gotten any commitment from any of the parties
that they wouldn't oppose the permit. And that would certainly
be something we would still be subject to negotiation. If they
won't oppose a reasonable permit to fill a pothole, for example,
then we would simply go through that permitting process and be
Page 64
December 12, 2000
able to do that.
So I think we could accomplish those three things. I think
we could accomplish an open-ended time period. I think we
could accomplish a willingness to allows us to use the permit
process as part of our temporary use right. And I think it might
even be possible to get some agreement upon -- depending on
the scope of the permit we sought, the scope of work we wanted
to do, we might get some agreement on no opposition to those
permit applications. Beyond that, I don't know what we can
accomplish with a resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about whether
or not filling potholes is sufficient. My motive here from the
beginning has been -- until the State does their deal, we have to
protect the people who live there. And, frankly, I support the
State doing their acquisition if they will pay fair prices. I think
that the restoration is important and has to happen.
But while we have residents living there, we have to provide
adequate emergency and evacuation access for them. I hate to
do this, but I see two Flaggs in the room. Would you know or is
her-- no. He's not here.
Does somebody know, Mr. Olliff, whether or not filling the
potholes addresses that problem or are we going to continue to
have emergency access problems if we don't do more?
Somebody, whoever knows.
MR. OI. LIFF: I will let Chief Flagg address that. I do know
that we have tried before to fill potholes and issues like that and
have not been able to do that without being told we need
permits.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What happens if we fill the
potholes and don't have a permit? What is the penalty for that?
Because some things are worth doing.
MR. OLLIFF: That's -- that is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do I have to go to jail?
MR. PERKINS: We tried that. It don't work.
CHIEF FLAGG'- Chief Diane Flagg of emergency medical
services, for the record.
I will say that if you are able to fill the potholes, then the
emergency vehicles could access Miller. Miller is critical to
emergency vehicles getting into that area not only for the
residents, but for the people who go out there as part of their
Page 65
December 12, 2000
recreational area and do the ATV riding and those types of
things.
So it's not only just the residents. It is the people that also
go out there and recreate. And we've had medical emergencies
out there and have had difficulty accessing those people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we filled the potholes -- if
we could get a settlement that allowed us to fill the potholes,
that would be -- that would meet your needs?
CHIEF FLAGG: That would get us out there. It would not be
ideal, but certainly it would allow us to access those people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I think I'm going to
be supporting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question on that though. If we
just fill the potholes, what do we do when it's rainy weather if we
don't have -- if we have something to grade?
See, you're only satisfying the need for six months a year. I
say to try for the maximum amount we can get with the highest
grade we can get to try to put down some limerock, some gravel,
fill the potholes. Give us a surface that's going to last for some
period of time at a height that would still allow some water to
flow or maybe put the necessary culverts in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But how could we ever get the
permits for that when we're asking the agency -- the agency who
would permit that is the one whose goal is to rip out all the roads
in the area.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: How hard is it to rip out gravel? I
mean, it would seem to me in grading and raising that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Limestone.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Limestone. That should not be too
difficult to spread around if you're going to end up doing it -- if
they end up meeting their objective, then --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Use that to fill a canal.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do whatever you need to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. They can have it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But I agree with you, Commissioner
Coletta. I would like to maximize the safety of this road to get it
to be operational, to be able to get people in and out for all
purposes, plus the emergency area in terms of evacuation.
And Mr. Perkins is right. It's not if we have a hurricane, it's
when.
Page 66
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So that that doesn't become a closed
area and we can't -- and we find ourselves really in trouble.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. Mr. Coletta, make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I ask--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would move per Mr. Petit's guidelines
that we have an open time line, that we obtain permits to
improve grade and fill potholes to keep that road operational to
meet safe, health -- safe, health and welfare issues for all the
residents of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
MR. PERKINS: Tanker trucks. Tanker trucks.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
MR. PERKINS: Right.
CHAIRMAN GARTER:
get them through there.
Tanker trucks?
For fire.
Well, I think if we do the other, we'll
Is that sufficient, Mr. Petit, to give you direction to deal with
this issue?
MR. PETIT: Let me see if I can capsulate. I think the big
direction I need is fight or try to resolve. But I think I'm hearing
you say resolve on those terms.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would resolve on those terms with
the option open to fight if they don't like it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that part, too.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any further discussion on the part of
the Board?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Petit.
MR. PETIT: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. PERKINS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have to do that because it's
safety, health and welfare.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It must be Christmas. They're
applauding us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
Page 67
December 12, 2000
Item #9B
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD TO APPROVE THE
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY AND FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY FOR
PAYMENT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO
SHERIFF'S EMPLOYEES - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Moving to 9(B), recommendation to the
Board to approve the proposed settlement and release
agreement between the County and the Fireman's Fund
Insurance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Moved by Commissioner Henning,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #9C
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL IN THE CASE OF JEANETTE SAUBERT
AND WILLIAM SAUBERT VS. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CASE NO. 99-3972-CA, PENDING IN
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL COURT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
- APPROVED
9(C), Jeanette Saubert and William Saubert versus Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
make a motion that we authorize outside counsel in the risk
management department to settle the lawsuit pertaining to the
items outlaid in our packet.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A second to that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A second by Commissioner Mac'kie.
Any discussion?
Page 68
December 12, 2000
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One comment on that, though, I would
like to share with the Board. I believe it would behoove us,
based on discussions that we've all had, to find a way to do
inspection of our sidewalks -- I'm going to say semi-annually.
You know, you've got a three-wheeler or something to go down
there to flag these issues.
Because the reason we got sued is because this was there a
long time. There was no identification that we were going to
repair it. So I would -- hopefully we could do a better job of
identifying those issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we direct staff to do that
now, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we certainly could.
Mr. Olliff, could we have staff come back to us with some
sort of an inspection program? Because if this would have been
marked a work in progress, any of those things would have given
counsel an opportunity to work a different scenario for us. But
under the circumstances, and what I saw, we just left ourselves
open for a lawsuit and we got it.
MR. OLLIFF: If you'll recall, this is the first budget year that
the Board has actually approved a sidewalk crew. And there
was, in the history of this County, never any crew that was
dedicated to actually going out and either reviewing or repairing
the County's existing sidewalks. So that funding just became
available October 1st. So we're in the process of trying to pull
that crew together.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. So we're really -- what you're
telling me, we're already in a direction to do that. Thank you.
So I -- Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can't we work through the
homeowners' associations maybe and have each one of them
responsible for their neighborhood to get back to a certain
individual on the sidewalks or pathways committee or
something?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I made a suggestion that we try
to use our Channel 54 to try to make the citizenry out there a
little more responsible to report these things on an earlier basis
also.
Page 69
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think they're all great ideas. And I
think that would give sufficient direction to Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You are welcome. Thank you, sir.
Item #9D
EMERGENCY DECLARED; ORDINANCE 2000-86, AMENDING
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2000-61, THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER IRRIGATION ORDINANCE TO AUTOMATICALLY
INCORPORATE ALL WATER RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN EACH
EMERGENCY WATER RESTRICTION ORDER DECLARED FROM
TIME-TO-TIME BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT - ADOPTED
Moving to Item 9(D) on water restrictions.
MR. ZACHARY: Good morning, Commissioners. Robert
Zachary, Assistant County Attorney.
I am here presenting this item on behalf of the Sheriff's
Office who requested our office to bring this forward. Because I
don't know if -- it was an add-on, so I'm not sure that you've had a
chance to go through this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have anything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I don't either.
MR. ZACHARY: The problem we have is that the South
Florida Water Management District from time to time issues
emergency orders restricting the use of water in areas which
include Collier County. The Florida statute that governs that is
Florida Statute :373.175.
And that allows for enforcement of the restrictions. That
statute requires that the persons that -- that are cited for
violating the water restrictions be cited for a second-degree
misdemeanor. Now, the Sheriff's Department wanted us to bring
and include some of those restrictions within our water irrigation
ordinance in order to have more flexibility in their enforcement.
Our ordinance the penalties range everywhere from a $25
citation up through 100, 250, $500 fines and it also includes the
second-degree misdemeanor.
I have Captain Mullen here from the Sheriff's Department in
case you have any questions for him. But the reason they
Page 70
December t2, 2000
wanted to do this is that they really don't want to go out and haul
somebody into court that may have set their timer wrong that
may be in violation of the water restrictions. To have more
flexibility in their enforcement options is the reason that we are
bringing this forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: One moment.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Comment from Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: You have two steps here, Commissioners.
And that is because this is brought on in an unadvertised
manner, first you will need to declare an emergency within the
public benefit, welfare to go forward. And then your second
motion would be to approve the ordinance.
MR. ZACHARY: And the emergency would have to be
declared, I believe, by a super majority. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the nature of the
emergency?
MR. ZACHARY: The emergency is the South Florida -- I
believe the South Florida Water Management District is putting a
great deal of pressure on the Sheriff's Office to enforce the
restrictions that they have in place. And the only option that the
Sheriffs Office has right now is to cite everybody for a
second-degree misdemeanor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only --
MR. ZACHARY: I believe that you would have everybody in
court.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question is if we were to
advertise this, we'd be able to hear the other side of the story. I
mean, it sounds to me like a perfectly reasonable thing, but is it
an emergency or should we advertise it and let the Water
Management District show up and tell us why they want it the
way they've done it?
MR. WEIGEL: The only thing is -- our understanding is, of
course, is until it would be advertised for the next board meeting
on January 9th is that in the meantime the Sheriff~s Office would
be restricted to enforce the statute by means of-- by means of
second-degree misdemeanor citation, which brings people to
court in every instance. So the emergency is really calling it
Page 71
December 12, 2000
convenience and flexibility both for the enforcing staff, as well
as for the potential enforcees that they would not be subject to
have to have a court date.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How are other counties in the
district handling this?
CAPTAIN MULLEN: Ma'am, it depends on what their
ordinances are.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, you are, sir?
CAPTAIN MULLEN: For the record -- I'm sorry, sir. Captain
Pat Mullen, Collier County Sheriff's Office.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it our ordinance or is it the
South Florida Water Management District regulation that causes
the problem?
CAPTAIN MULLEN: Currently, ma'am, they are in phase II
water restrictions, which is two days a week, 4:00 a.m. to 8:00
a.m. depending on your address. And that's not in accordance
with the current County ordinance.
For it to be enforceable, the County Attorney advised right
now our enforcement is a violation of State statute for a
misdemeanor offense --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I finally got it. I finally got it. I'm
sorry. And I will move that we declare an emergency.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta?
I will second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just wondering. I am very
concerned still about who out there hasn't been heard on this
particular thing. And I understand about the emergency and the
importance to be able to act now.
Is there some'way that we might be able to declare an
emergency to sunset on the 10th so on the 9th we could take
this up again in a regular meeting?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could always reconsider it,
couldn't we, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL.' Yes, you could. Although, normally this
ordinance would be enforceable after it -- because it's an
emergency ordinance -- upon placement in the U.S. mail.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think that is what you're
saying, Mr. Coletta. Let's go ahead and adopt this, but if there is
-- if somebody calls us in the next two weeks and says, "Oh, my
God, you've created a crisis, let's" -- we would be able to bring it
Page 72
December 12, 2000
back if we needed to reconsider it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Olliff is trying to talk to us.
MR. OLLIFF: I just need to make sure that the Board
understands what this item actually is. This item simply gives
the Sheriff's Department the flexibility so that they don't have to
-- right now they don't have a choice but to issue a
second-degree misdemeanor--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because of our ordinance.
MR. OLLIFF: Because of our ordinance. This at least allows
them to go out and issue a warning to someone or a -- you know,
talk to them and have some other means of trying to get them to
comply as opposed to sending them to court.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. I think this gives --
Commissioner Coletta, I think this gives a lot of flexibility so we
don't get into your fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So let's -- I second your motion we
have an emergency.
We have -- all in favor signify by saying aye that we have the
emergency.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move to approve the Sheriff's
Department recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
CAPTAIN MULLIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go get them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't get them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Give them some flexibility.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2000-464, AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING FINANCE
AUTHORITY OF COLLIER COUNTY TO ISSUE MULTI-FAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE A
QUALIFYING APARTMENT PROJECT - ADOPTED
Page 73
December 12, 2000
All right. That brings us to Board of County Commissioners
appointment of members to the citizens advisory task force.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have that housing finance
authority that, I think, Commissioner Fiala pulled.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Am I right about that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I have resolved that.
Actually, the attorney for that particular issue was here. I
wanted to know where it was. On our particular information it
didn't tell where the project is. He has since come up here and
talked to me about it and told me where the property is. And so I
don't have any other concerns.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
16(L)(2).
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
I'll move approval of Item
Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approves 5-0. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2000-465, REAPPOINTING KATHLEEN HERMANN
TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Moving on to Board of County
Commissioners, 10-A, appointment of members to the citizens
advisory task force.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move to approve Kathy
Herrmann, the re-applicant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #10B
Page 74
December 12, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-466, APPOINTING PHILLIP MUDRAK TO THE
GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
10(B), appointment of members to the Golden Gate
beautification advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Phillip Mudrak.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2000-467, APPOINTING CHERYLE L. NEWMAN TO
THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Appointment of a member to the Golden Gate community
center advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Newman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
a comment.
MS. FILSON: On this particular one you will need to waive
Section 7(B)(1) of Ordinance 86-41 because she served her
two-term limit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Move to approve Cheryle
Second. And then Ms. Filson has
Would you include that in your
I do include that in my motion.
Second accepts that. Thank you.
All in favor signify by saying
Motion carries.
Item #10D
Page 75
December 12, 2000
DISCUSSION REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY'S SPONSORSHIP OF
4TH OF JULY PARADE - MR. LUNTZ AND STAFF TO GO THROUGH
THE TDC APPLICATION PROCESS AND MAKE IT A COUNTY-WIDE
EVENT
That takes us to 10(D), Fourth of July. Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA-' Okay. What I'm proposing here
is -- a presentation is going to be made by Herb Luntz to involve
the County as a joint sponsorship with the City of Naples for the
Fourth of July parade.
Mr. Luntz, would you present that to us?
MR. LUNTZ: For the record, I'm Herb Luntz. I am here
representing the Fourth of July committee in the City of Naples. I
never thought that I would be able to do this. So I'm very
grateful that I have the opportunity.
It has been a concern of mine for quite some time and
manifested itself after this past Fourth that the event has gotten
incredibly large. If anybody really understands, we had over
100,000 people on the beach for the fireworks with one DUI
incident. That was all. And we had over 60,000 people in the
street for the parade.
This coming Fourth of July it is going to be bigger and better
than this past year. Because we'll have, I estimate, a minimum
of four military bands, plus the fly-by that will at least double in
quantity. Mr. Scott Cameron now has volunteered his aircraft
and his piloting skills to handle the lump from the special
operations command over Gulfview Middle School, et cetera, et
cetera.
We're going to have at least two concerts down on the 3rd
of July down at the new band shell. Two military bands in the
morning. We'll continue to have our concert at Gulfcoast High
School that evening. And then we'll have the fourth concert in
front of the Sugden Theater in the plaza after the parade.
I've been working with my corporate sponsors. We raised
the money to pay for the military people last year. People like
the First National Bank of Naples. Weigold and Sons Air
Conditioning, the Naples Daily News, Manhattan Bagels, et
cetera. We have had conversations at the City about whether or
Page 76
December 12, 2000
not we're going to be able to take care of these extra bands,
transportation and all of the things that are an associated with it.
They have a crisis downtown. I am not going to go into
details --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Which one?
MR. LUNTZ: -- as to what that crisis is. But I had a choice
to make. And either we were going to keep the event growing
and working as well as it is or we would have to scale back.
Quite frankly, I had a discussion with Mr. Coletta --
Commissioner Coletta about this. He happens to be on my team,
believe it or not. He drives a golf cart in the parade. And we've
spoke with Mr. Olliff the other day.
And, quite frankly, what I'm hoping for is that I can get the
Board of County Commissioners, hopefully with the support of
Mr. Olliff and his people, to go along with the City as a
co-applicant to get TDC money in the amount of $25,000 to take
care of the added costs that are involved in this. I assured Mr.
Brock -- and I will say this publicly -- that any reporting that
would need to be done based on his concerns, of course, will
naturally be handled. We will not do anything to make it a
question mark in anybody's mind.
Whatever monies we would get from TDC would not be
necessary until June when the invoicing begins for buses and
transport, et cetera. And I would hope that this Board of County
Commissioners would instruct staff to work with me -- because I
represent the City in this matter -- in doing the co-application so
that the County can become a sponsor with City of Naples and
we can make this a community-wide event and do the things that
need to be done to make it a community-wide Fourth of July.
With that, I will answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have two questions.
MR. LUNTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
you need?
MR. LUNTZ: $25,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
MR. LUNTZ:
Maybe three. How much money did
$25,000?
That's correct.
Page 77
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER FIALA-' That's from the County. Will any --
MR. LUNTZ: From TDC, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will any events be held in the
County?
MR. LUNTZ: Well, let me put it this way. Gulfcoast High
School is located in the County. Whatever else we would be able
to put together that would be meaningful, it would sure be open
for consideration.
But, as you know, Commissioner, we're used to doing
everything down on Third Street and Fifth Street and the park
and the band shell and Gulfcoast and Gulfview Middle School, et
cetera. I don't know how many events we could really put
together out here in the County. There were a lot of County
people that came downtown on the Fourth of July.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I know. I am one of your
greatest fans. You know that.
MR. LUNTZ: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thirdly, and last, will there be -- one
of the requirements with TDC funds -- I think aside from the fact
that it sponsors events is that we fill beds. And will we be filling
beds and filling restaurants?
MR. LUNTZ: The -- we had to go out to Golden Gate last
year and use the Quality Inn to put our military people up. It
presented problems for us logistically.
This year we're bringing them into town and we are going to
use the Ramada Plaza Hotel at Pine Ridge and 41 and the new
Sheraton that's going to be finished down in East Naples
because it is the same ownership.
We were told that there weren't any beds available this year
over the Fourth of July weekend. And from a personal
standpoint, my wife and I went up to Sarasota the following
Thursday because she sang for the opera guild -- and I didn't
know anybody. And we walked into the room and all the people
were saying is, "My God. What are you people doing in Naples on
the Fourth of July? We couldn't get any rooms."
They are here. They are coming. And they are going to fill
everything in town. And, of course, the newspaper helps us
publicize it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think what we need to do is give
direction to staff to take it to the system because it has a
Page 78
December 12, 2000
process to go through, I believe, Mr. Olliff, and that would be
appropriate at this time based on the request.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. There is a TDC application process
that, I believe, applications need to be in early in January. They
would have to go through a TDC review where the TDC board
would make recommendation to this Board and this Board makes
final approval.
The only caution that I would provide to the Board is to
recognize that we need to keep this a community-wide type
event if we're going to jointly participate. Only because you
need to keep in mind that there are two other incorporated cities
in this community who have historically come to this Board and
asked for funding assistance, especially with the fireworks
portions of their Fourth of July celebrations.
So as long as we are in agreement that this is going to be a
community-wide type Fourth of July celebration and perhaps
include and be the type of event that would draw people from all
of the incorporated cities throughout the County, then it might be
the kind of thing that the County might want to participate in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question, Mr. Luntz.
MR. LUNTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think this is just the best thing
since slice bread. It's in my district, so that makes it, you know,
my community. The question I have -- I mean no disrespect.
Has the City Council asked you to come and present this? Is
this an official request?
MR. LUNTZ: No. I met with Don Worth and David Lykens
yesterday. They had already previously come to me and said,
"What can we do? Because we're not going to have the extra
funding that's going to be necessary to mushroom this thing the
way we know that you're getting ready to do it."
Example, the Third Infantry Division mechanized out of Fort
Stewart, Georgia has given us their band. And they just went to
Cosovo six weeks ago. The entire division. They guarantee that
unless war breaks out they're going to be back down here for our
Fourth of July. And the Marines have said, "We want to come
back."
And it is mushrooming from here. We are becoming known
all over the eastern part of the United States as the place to
come for the Fourth of July. And from a personal standpoint, I
Page 79
December 12, 2000
don't want to blow it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand. And I think Tom Olliff's
words should be well taken in this. As long as it's a County-wide
event and participation, I think we are on safe ground, Herb. You
know I totally support what you're trying to do. You have done a
phenomenal job with this event.
MR. LUNTZ: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And you should be publicly recognized
over and over for what you have done.
So with that direction, do we need a motion or do we just
need to give staff direction?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion, if you don't
mind.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you feel more comfortable with
that, Tom, with a motion?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what -- I will wait. Never
mind.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to make a motion
that we direct staff to work with Herb Luntz incorporating what
the County Manager HAS already said that we make it a
County-wide event and pass it on up the line to the TDC.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only question that I have on
the motion is: This is a motion that we direct staff to prepare to
work with Mr. Luntz and the City of Naples to prepare an
application to go through the TDC process. I mean, as the
ultimate arbitrators of who gets TDC money, I want to be sure
that we are not approving anything ahead of time. We are just
saying, "Let's apply."
MR. LUNTZ.' And that's the way it's understood and the City
understands it, as well.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that is in your motion, Mr.
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
that.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
I'll incorporate that in the
Then a second will also go with
Page 80
December 12, 2000
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
MR. LUNTZ: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Herb.
MR. LUNTZ: Mr. Olliff, I will be in touch, sir.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I also want to
point out -- I didn't want to get in the way of that motion. But the
County will continue to stand behind its event at Sugden Park
because historically the City Council has always been of a
position that they want us to have events that draw some of that
-- especially Fourth of July special events traffic out of the Olde
Naples area. So hopefully we will continue to have dual-type
events for the entire community.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I couldn't agree with you more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, hopefully, we'll get some
promotion from the parade committee to attract some more
people out in the County's Fourth of July event.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's great. It could be on your
line-up when you publish it in the paper and pass out the flyers.
That's an excellent suggestion, Mr. Olliff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's two places to go. We have the
one at Sugden Park and we've got the one downtown. And the
Fourth of July is just a very, very big event in Collier County.
MR. LUNTZ: Do you think it would be appropriate to do a
fly-by over the Golden Gate Community Park? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As long as the guy that's flying it stays
in his airplane.
All right. That brings us to public comment. Do we have any
speakers, sir?
MR. OLLIFF: You do. You have one. Ken Thompson.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Thompson, are you here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He was here. I spoke with him
on the break. I guess he's gone.
MR. OLLIFF: I don't see him in the room now, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. That brings us to about six
minutes to the hour. And Commissioner Mac'Kie and I need to
journey over to the board of -- over to the supervisor of elections
office to meet with the canvassing board. We have had no word
on the Supreme Court or anything at this point?
Page 81
December t2, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would suggest we do a 15-minute
recess and then come back and see if we can take this next
item, which there's a lot of people waiting here to speak to, and
see if we can't clarify that. And that will be 12-A under
comprehensive plan amendments. And it's in regards to the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle.
So I would like to deal with that. But give us about 15
minutes to go deal with our other business. So we stand in
recess until 12:15.
(Recess taken.)
Item #12A1
ORDINANCE 2000-87, RE PETITION CP-2000-01, AMENDING THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO ESTABLISH THE
BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in
session. We are on item, now, 12(A)1, comprehensive plan
amendments, recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt by ordinance petition CP2000-01, an
amendment to the growth management future land use and
future land use map, Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment
overlay.
MS. PRESTON: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good afternoon.
MS. PRESTON: For the record, Debrah Preston with your
comprehensive planning department. Before we start the item
before you today, I'd like to just go over a few brief items that
have to deal with the Bayshore/Gateway redevelopment project.
There are several things going on sort of simultaneously, and I
think there might be some confusion on what we're doing here
today.
In June of this year, we adopted the community
redevelopment plan, and that has in it some catalyst projects
and ideas to redevelop the Bayshore/Gateway area. In that, they
talk about economic development as well as neighborhood
Page 82
December 12, 2000
preservation in helping to stabilize the neighborhood. The other
thing that we're trying to do is to do a catalyst project at the
corner of Davis and U.S.
41.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are these shown on this map
that you have?
MS. PRESTON: Yes. The catalyst project is up here in
orange on your area map, and that would be to do a total
redevelopment project and we have put out a request for
proposals and that will be brought back to this board in January
to discuss whether or not you want to pursue that project and
how you want to negotiate that project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Deb, I'm gonna, if I may,
please, interrupt you and just try to -- I'm going to do translation
into plain speak from -- from bureaucratese (sic), that in that
little orange triangle, in January, this board will decide whether
or not we want to have everything in there torn down and rebuilt
as a single project. That will happen in January as to that little
orange triangle.
Now, go ahead, if you would. There's nobody gonna -- I
can't help it, I've got to just say it right now. I am so sorry that
someone has misled people. If you received this, I want you to
know, this is a lie. Did you know that you are going to lose your
home is a lie. There is nothing in any of this that has anybody's
homes at risk, nothing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Now, you know, it says -- can I add?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I add? It says in here
something about the Board of County Commissioners has been
working toward this end, but I don't see where it references any
positive proof. I'd like to see something, anything in writing. No
writing, and by the way, I own property in Bayshore. Selectively,
I didn't get one of these. I thought that was kind of interesting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and I'm sorry because I've
got to just say one more thing and then we'll go back because
what Debrah's gonna try to do is tell us that there are several
items being considered for Bayshore. Today's item has nothing
to do with anybody's potential taking of property, which is that
triangle she's talking about. There may be -- actually, Mr. Ingram
owns a piece of property that may be the subject of a taking. It's
Page 83
December 12, 2000
a commercial strip and it's not anybody's home. There's nothing
in any of the Bayshore plans that ever shows a taking of a
person's home. Now, I will stop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nor has it ever been spoken of.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ever.
MS. PRESTON: I think also it should be noted that although
you have the power of eminent domain under the CRA powers,
we hope that the deals with the private sector come forward and
they can be negotiated on a sale basis and that we don't have to
use that. That would be a last resort. There may be some cases
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But have we ever even talked about
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. Hold
it. People do not speak from the audience unless you're signed
up. You come up here, you get a slip, you sign up. This is not a
dialogue between commissioners and the audience.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I
should not have interrupted Miss Preston, but I do -- I believe that
people have been misled and I want them to understand the
truth.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I totally agree, and if we can have
dialogue here, if you have a question, Commissioner, for Miss
Preston, go ahead, and then we have a number of public
speakers. If we've clarified the issue, maybe a lot of those
speakers will not choose to speak today. Questions for Miss
Preston?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, Deb, as you know, I've been
working in the Bayshore area with different -- different groups
and so forth because I've taken a deep interest in improving the
area for about eight years now. I started out with the Sheriff's
Office in working with their COPS program trying to clean up
some of the problem areas we've had and we were -- we were
pretty successful there, and then after that I worked with -- with
the clean-up crews from East Naples Civic Association as we
went around from door to door, and then we went marching down
the street trying to get people involved in a clean-up process.
From there, we moved into redevelopment and I worked on
all the redevelopment committees within the county, outside
with the groups of people. From there, I went on the Bayshore
Page 84
December 12, 2000
M.S.T.U., so I've been every place. I've been involved in this
thing the whole time. I've never seen -- I've never seen the
person who wrote this letter on those committees, by the way,
helping us to improve, and never once have I ever heard of taking
any property on Bayshore, ever, ever. It's never been mentioned
in any of these meetings in eight years. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other points for us?
MS. PRESTON: The only other issue I'd like to tell you about
is the Bayshore mixed use zoning overlay that is part of the land
development code amendments that are coming to the board
tomorrow evening. This amendment does allow for those
provisions to take place.
What we're doing here today is amending the growth
management plan, and the growth management plan is the basic
framework that gives us authority on density issues and types of
uses, and then when the mixed use zoning overlay gets adopted,
it will correspond with this growth management plan
amendment, so that's --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that's an important
clarification. This comes first, the L.D.C. amendment comes
second, ties it all together?
MS. PRESTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we taking anything away
from anybody if we adopt the comprehensive plan amendment
that's in front of us today?
MS. PRESTON: No, we're not doing any rezoning with this or
any change of land uses. What this amendment does is allow for
an increase in density up to 12 units per acre, if you are doing
the criteria that's listed, which is primarily in a mixed use project
site, or you have to be included in the Bayshore mixed use zoning
overlay. That would be a land development code change, and
then we are limiting some heights. We have some development
standards in there, but we're not taking away anyone's current
zoning on their property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know it's not your particular
area of expertise and I'm sorry I didn't tell you I was gonna ask
this question, but if you were to try to judge if this is a negative
or a positive for property values in the area, what would be your
assessment?
MS. PRESTON: My assessment would be, it would be a
Page 85
December 12, 2000
positive thing because if -- you're going to be able to have
increased density on your particular project site or have
additional commercial uses on your project site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: May we go to public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. I believe we've got over 25 at this
point, so I'm going to call them two at a time and if the second
speaker would come behind the podium and be ready to step up
to the podium, we'd appreciate it.
The first one is Wanda and Carl Butler, followed by Steve
Ramsey.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just curious if Mr. Ingram is a
registered speaker?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
MR. INGRAM: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Looking forward to it.
MR. INGRAM: Good.
MS. BUTLER: I'm here on behalf of me and my husband. My
name is Wanda Butler. I live at 110 Jeepers Drive. My husband
is unable to come to this meeting today because he has had a
heart attack and he's on oxygen seven days a week, 24 hours a
day, so there's no way that he could come, but I am in behalf --
when I bought this property six years ago, I paid $33,000 from a
settlement that I had got whenever I was hurt. I thought this
would be our home for the rest of our lives, but now I see that
everybody's trying to take our home away from us.
If they take our home, where are we gonna go? We have not
the money to buy another place and pay out the mortgage that
we owe on this home, and I do not think it's right that people can
come in and say, we're gonna take your home or we're gonna
take it or else we're gonna condemn it and you won't have no
say-so over it. I don't agree with that.
I've lived in Naples for 24 years and this is the first home me
and my husband has ever had and I don't know how long he's
gonna be here, but I do know I cannot go and live with any of my
kids because they've got families of their own and they're in debt
too, and I just think that they better think twice before they
come in and try to take my home away from me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Honey, nobody's gonna do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ma'am, could I get your
Page 86
December 12, 2000
attention? If you would look here, I believe Jeepers is -- help me.
MS. BUTLER: Jeepers Drive is right across from Windstar.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you see on this map, ma'am,
that it's not colored at all?
MS. BUTLER: No, but we're still in jeopardy because
Windstar -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I give you my word, you are not
in jeopardy with this Bayshore project for anybody to do anything
to take your home. We are interested in trying to make your
property worth more and trying to make your neighborhood nicer
and I am committed to working to that, but I will give you my
word, nobody's trying to take your home.
MS. BUTLER: I think our property is nice. Bay -- Jeepers
Drive is well kept.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is nice.
MS. BUTLER: We keep it mowed, we keep it trimmed and on
Christmas, everybody decorates. We don't have problems with
the neighbors. We all get along together. Of course, there's
drugs everywhere you go, no matter what street you're on or
where you're at in Naples, but what my point is, I will fight to
keep my property. I cannot afford to lose it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Steve Ramsey, followed by
Sarah Lyon.
MR. RAMSEY: The lady just speaking is my -- well, my name
is Steve Ramsey. I live at 106 Jeepers Drive. That was my
mother just speaking. I've been there four years. There's nobody
to take care of my parents, so I moved on that street one trailer
away to take care of my parents. Now all of a sudden, people
are coming in and saying, hey, we're gonna take your places.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're not.
MR. RAMSEY: There's no way. There's too many of us.
Everybody in here is gonna fight you people and fight anybody
that tries to take our places.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sir, what makes you think
somebody's gonna try to take your --
MR. RAMSEY: I mean, why are there all these rumors? Why
are we getting all these papers saying that we're getting our
places taken?
Page 87
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because -- and I want to answer.
Because there is a person who owns a strip shopping center
who may have it condemned if he's not willing to improve it and
he is using you to stop what he doesn't want to see done to his
property. He has lied to you.
MR. INGRAM: I object. If there is a liar, it is you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hey, you'll have your turn up here.
MR. RAMSEY: See, we've been through this once before
with Botanical Gardens. They came in, they bought up a bunch
of our property, tried to move us out. We're not going to go
through this again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're not --
MR. RAMSEY: We're going to fight. I don't care what it
costs anybody, we're gonna fight.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If every speaker wants to come here
and make that point to us, I will recognize that as the chair. I
don't think I'm going to change your mind at this point. I don't
know how many times the commissioners here are saying, this is
not the intent. I'm sorry you've been misled. I don't know who
put out the paper. I have no idea. We will listen --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that it?
MR. RAMSEY: That's the paper everybody got.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I will listen, but we're here to tell
you that that's not gonna happen.
MR. RAMSEY: See, that's all we need to -- that's all we want
to be guaranteed, that they're not gonna take our places.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're the authority here, not some guy
or person who writes something and sends it out to everybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, if you don't believe it, go
for a paper trail or make him prove it. As long as he's accused
us, make -- show anything in writing that says anything like that.
MR. RAMSEY: The thing is, if they do take our places, who's
gonna take care of our parents, who's gonna take care of us,
where are we gonna go?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All we're gonna do is improve the
neighborhood. I mean, so that if your -- your property values will
rise, your parents will still live in the same house, same
neighborhood, except the property values will probably increase
and the neighborhood will look better, and hopefully, it will be
Page 88
December 12, 2000
better, because what -- I'm hoping that when the beautification
process continues to improve this area, some of the undesirable
things that you and I would prefer not to be looking at, like your
mom suggested, drugs and so forth, will maybe move out of that
neighborhood because they're uncomfortable there.
MR. RAMSEY: Well, we just want to make sure, and if it
does come right down to it, everybody's got a fight on their
hands.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't blame you, but just look for
the proof?
MR. RAMSEY: I'm not gonna give up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioners, please, let's hear the
people. They want to speak and let's get -- let's go through it and
try to assure them --
MR. RAMSEY: That's all I've got to say.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, sir. Next
speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's Sarah Lyon, followed by Donald
Chesser.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And maybe we can just line them up
three or four at a time so that we can continue to hear everyone.
MR. OLI. IFF: Following Mr. Chesser would be John Currie.
MS. LYON: Hi. If you're going to do what you said you're
going to do, I don't really have so much to say, but I don't think
it's right, if that thing is true, you can get rid of all our homes,
and the county is pretty bad about pushing people around. They
pushed us around. We was on Terrace Avenue and we had a
house that we was renting and there was a little repair needed to
be done, but they said it was unsafe, and there's houses there
that maybe are unsafe, but ours wasn't. My husband even took
video when he was tearing it down. They made us tear it down.
He built the house by himself. He tore it down by himself
and he took video of everything, and there was .only a couple of
places that was rotten and he could have fixed it for less than
$2,000 and they made us tear it down or they'd tear it down and
charge us for it, and if this isn't being -- I mean, this is
communism when you come and make people do stuff like that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we're not --
MS. LYON: No, they did. They made us tear it down. That
was six years ago, and we was -- we was renting it and that was
Page 89
December 12, 2000
some of our income and to help pay the taxes and stuff and
we've been paying taxes on it for all this time, over $1,000 a year
for that and no use -- we couldn't use it for anything, and they
made it so that we couldn't even hardly sell it. Nobody wanted --
they wanted it, but they'd go to the county and they couldn't do
anything with it because somebody had bought the property next
to it and built a building right up next to the line, and that was all
right then, and then they -- they made that one lot commercial
beside it. Never even told us about it, and we had to pay extra
taxes because of that being commercial, and so now -- and we
wanted to try to sell it. We had to have 15 feet on each side from
that line to wherever you wanted to do something and 15 feet
from the other side, and there was only two lots that were 40
feet apiece.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ma'am, I'm going to have to ask you to
speak to this issue. I can understand your frustration in the past,
but I can only deal with the issue --
MS. LYON: I'm just saying that the county does push you
around, so they better be careful, I guess. We've got this many
people behind it. We didn't have money enough to hire a lawyer
and fight them, but that's what we should have done. They
wanted us to bring it up to county code and that would have cost
us over $12,000 to do that. They wanted us to put new wire in,
new foundation and everything.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, ma'am, that would be true of
anyone. People have to be up to code. I'm not going to debate
the issue with you now.
MS. LYON: Well, this was lathered (sic) in. This should have
been fathered (sic) in. Everybody else on the street didn't have
to do it. So I'm just saying what the county does. It's beginning
to get communism in this town -- in this country -- in this town.
That's all I can say.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you for your comments.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Donald Chesser, followed by
John Currie. Following Mr. Currie would be Larry Ingram.
MR. CHESSER: Good afternoon. My name is Donald Chesser
and I am a native of Collier County and I'm here of my own
accord, not by anyone else. I own property within the Davis
Triangle, exactly lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Triangle Lake, which
no longer exists because, at my personal expense, I had it filled
Page 90
December 12, 2000
with the legal requirements met before I did so.
My reason for being here is not adversarial at all. My reason
for being here is for certification and clarification of some terms.
Please excuse my voice. I was at the Miami Dolphins football
game Sunday and I suffered as bad as the Dolphins did.
First of all, the word that has been going around that
bothers me greatly is condemnation. By its definition, it seems
to be terminal, and understand this property has been in my
family and owned by myself for 41 years, and that scares me. It
scares me terribly. So I need some clarification as to what we're
talking about when you say condemnation.
Secondly, I have also heard the word blighted area and that
scares me as well because while it might be referred to you -- or
you might refer to it as blighted area, it has been my family's
bread and butter for 41 years.
My last concern is that I am certainly in favor of anything
within this triangle to improve it. My concern is that possibly by
the, again, condemnation of my property, you are disallowing me
to receive the appropriate value that my property deserves and it
is escalating in value because of the recent things that have
happened in this area, namely the addition of the hotel, that I
just recently understand has been now put into the City of
Naples, but the most important thing is the purchase of the
Chlumpsky Shopping Center, which is going to be redeveloped,
and finally I see a light at the end of the tunnel, that my property,
which is almost at the apex of Davis Boulevard and U.S. 41, has
become valuable, and consequently, I do not want to lose any of
that value. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I try to answer? Mr.
Chesser? Mr. Chesser? I just wanted to be sure that I answered
all your questions before you left. Condemnation is a power that
the CRA has, but this will be the board of the CRA and it certainly
is not gonna use it lightly. It's a power that -- you would be
asked to participate in a public hearing process. It's not
something that happens to you without your knowledge and it's a
very last resort. If it ever happens, I'll be surprised. The
question about the word' blight -- MR. CHESSER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The word blight had to be used in
order to get this area designated as a community redevelopment
Page 91
December 12, 2000
district. The same word was used to describe Fifth Avenue
South in downtown Naples.
MR. CHESSER: Certainly so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's blighted, then please call
my house blighted because that's beautiful, so that shouldn't be
a concern. What was the third point?
MR. CHESSER: Fine. The third point was that I receive the
value that I think I am due for the property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And everybody's in favor of that.
MR. CHESSER: Certainly so. May I also add, just in closing,
that I do believe that if we give it time, the same thing that has
occurred on Fifth Avenue will happen naturally on Davis
Boulevard because it has started. It has started with the
purchase of the Chlumpsky Shopping Center, and therefore, I
certainly want to take part in that and be a product of what the
fruits of that effort are. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just -- and for the record, if
this is not approved, Miss Preston, today, can the Chlumpsky
redevelopment project go forward?
MS. PRESTON: No, they would not be able to get the density
that they're requesting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I take it, you support what we
have today then?
MR. CHESSER: Certainly so. I'll certainly join you in any
effort I can to make it happen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's John Currie, followed by Larry
Ingram. Following Mr. Ingram will be Tony Pires.
MR. CURRIE: Good afternoon. My name is John Currie. I
live on Jeepers Drive. I'm here because of the -- basically
because of that fear tactic here, a scare tactic. The words
blight, condemnation bother us. We're very concerned.
We're not sure that the powers that be across the road from
us on Jeepers Drive have anything to do with this, but you hear
those rumors as well as these rumors here. All I'll say is, I'm
extremely concerned, especially for a lot of these people here,
and that's why we're here in force, basically because of this
letter, and the gentleman behind me, I guess, is the fellow that
put this together and I'm waiting to hear what he has to say
about it. Thank you.
Page 92
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As he's coming forward too, I'll
just let you know that the staff has already indicated a real
desire to have more community meetings, and if there's anybody
here who's willing to participate in the process of developing the
plan for the improvement of the neighborhood, I'd ask you to
leave your name and address with this lady who made the
presentation over here, Miss Preston, so we can be sure you
know about neighborhood meetings. Then you won't have to
worry about misinformation and scare tactics.
MR. INGRAM: Thank you. My haree's Larry Ingram. I'm one
of the property owners on Bayshore Drive. I've given you a
photograph of -- two photographs of my property. It meets all of
the current building standards. I've doubled the amount of
parking. My predecessor in title paid to run the city sewer line to
the property over 20 years ago, long before the county even
thought about a sewer system.
I was required to put in an infrastructure system to handle
all of the runoff from the adjoining property at my expense. I
have French drains in place to handle a 36 unit development, of
which I've only constructed half.
I've landscaped the property with royal palms. I have
sodded the property. I've maintained the county road right of
way now for -- since 1983.
I think you're glossing over the fact that the ordinance you
passed, ordinance 2000-82, the pertinent portions of which are
as follows, don't follow what members of the board are saying
today.
Paragraph one, there are conditions in the area, Bayshore
Drive area, detrimental to the public health, safety, morals and
public welfare. Two, a predominance of inadequate or defective
street layout. Three, faulty and inadequate lot layout. Four,
unsanitary conditions. Five, a deterioration of sites and other
improvements. Diversity of ownership. Action must be taken to
prevent further blight and deterioration and to protect and
enhance the public expenditures previously made in the area.
You've designated it a blighted area. Section three says,
based upon the foregoing facts, the Board of County
Commissioners does hereby find the area to be a blighted area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just like Fifth Avenue South.
MR. INGRAM: Well, Fifth Avenue South wasn't a blighted
Page 93
December 12, 2000
area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It had to be declared so for CRA,
right?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute. Let Mr. Ingram finish,
please.
MR. INGRAM: So you have made these findings of fact that
the homes that these people own and the property that I own are
blighted. You have made a finding of fact that the Gulf Shore
Shopping -- Gulf Gate Shopping Center is blighted. I take issue
with that. We are not blighted properties.
You have included properties in this district that should not
have been included in this district. They are not blighted. They
should not be in the district, and I tell you, I doubt if any of you
commissioners have gone door to door like I did this past
weekend, and you know, these people's homes are not blighted.
The only thing that can be said is they're not Port Royal and
they're not Windstar. It's a working class neighborhood and it's a
neighborhood for retired working class people and I take great
offense that you've passed an ordinance that says that these
people live in a blighted area. It is not blighted. It is just not
Port Royal. It is not Windstar.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Ingram, I understand that, but
what about the issues in front of us today that you either are for
or against?
MR. INGRAM: I'm against any further action on this district.
I think that the residential areas to the east of Bayshore Drive
should be taken out and I think that my property and the Gulf
Gate Shopping Center property and the undeveloped portion of
lot 39 of Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms, unit
two, should not be in it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what that is.
MR. INGRAM: That's the property to the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, okay. I'm just going to ask this,
is there -- in this whole dialogue of everything, there's probably
an opportunity to have discussions about that, but that is not
germane to this issue in front of us today, is the way I
understand it.
MR. INGRAM: Well, I want to be excluded from the district
and I think these people want to be excluded from the district,
Page 94
December 12, 2000
and I wish you would quit shaking your head. You are one of the
most rudest people I have ever had to deal with.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am not going --
MR. INGRAM: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He has lied to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Ingram, did you have anything to
do with this letter that was circulated to the neighbors?
MR. INGRAM: You bet I did, because I wanted these people
to know.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. For the record, I
appreciate that.
MR. INGRAM: You're welcome. See ya in court.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we have people there that will
probably see you too.
MR. INGRAM: Well, I think I've got a better --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Anthony
Pires, followed by Kandice Grace. Following Miss Grace will be
Earl Stults.
MR. PIRES: Members of the board, for the record, Anthony
Pires. Sometimes it's an advantage being short, you can duck
when stuff starts flying. I'm representing Bob Taylor and the
Thalheimers today. They own property in the area that's been
called the Gateway Triangle, the triangle area or the apex area,
and they have substantial concerns.
I'd like, for the record, to make part of the record the full
Planning Commission transcript where we appeared last week
and objected. I'll give it to Mr. Weigel, if that's appropriate, Mr.
Chairman, as well as printouts from the property appraiser's
office concerning the numbers involving this particular property.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Pires, one moment. I will note for the
record that I am receiving these. We'll provide these to the court
reporter. These are not reviewed by the board during the
process of your discussion here.
MR. PIRES: Thank you. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I know five
minutes is the limitation on speakers. I have two clients. Is it
possible to have seven minutes?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to ask you to move as
quickly as you can.
MR. PIRES: I will, sir. One of the first issues I would note is
Page 95
December 12, 2000
that we object to hearing this today. You may hear contrary
advice from your county attorney. I'm sure you will, but the legal
notice of intent to consider the ordinance indicated that the
board was to consider an ordinance amending Collier County
ordinance number 80-05 as amended, the Collier County growth
management plan. The Collier County growth management plan
is, in fact, ordinance number 89-05, not ordinance 80-05.
Ordinance 80-05 is a community block development grant
program ordinance. I'd like to make that legal notice advertised
December 1st and 6th part of the record and object to having the
hearing take place at this particular time.
The concern of my clients is with regard to a number of
issues. The fact that they have not been participating in this
process, have not been involved in this process. They are the
largest property owners -- probably the largest property owners
in that apex area, and yet they need to find out about this
process through the legal notification process, and what has
happened is chilling the values in this particular area, contrary to
some of the assertions.
I note that in the redevelopment plan itself, it says at page
88 that in this area, quote, the fragmented ownership patterns of
this area will probably require a public acquisition program, i.e.,
condemnation, in order to assemble the scale of property
required for redevelopment. We are concerned with a pattern
that is occurring here with regards to the chilling effect on the
values of the property.
This past September, the board, on September -- excuse me,
October 10th of this year, adopted a resolution as to the
Bayshore area which includes this Gateway Triangle area,
includes my clients' property that states, no conflicting
development, based on the findings set forth in section two of
this resolution, the Board of County Commissioners -- this is
resolution number 2000-360, does hereby instruct and direct the
Community Redevelopment Agency and all departments of the
county not to approve or allow any redevelopment or
development activities or projects in the community
redevelopment area that are contrary to the goals and objectives
of the community redevelopment plan for that area. I'll introduce
that in the record, and that sounds like a moratorium to me, and
coincidentally, ten, twelve days thereafter, this request for
Page 96
December 12, 2000
proposals, invitation to submit proposals for the redevelopment
and disposition of my client's property, and Io and behold, my
clients get a flier in the mail, welcome, kind of like the draft
notice I guess you all used to get, from Real Estate Investments,
Inc. It says basically, coming to your area is a project called
Bella Villaggio, and I'd like to introduce that as part of the
record, indicating that Bob Taylor's property, Thalheimer's
property is going to be acquired, put together -- acquired by
governmental action, put together and sold to private
developers. As recently as last night, is my understanding, it
was reported to me, at a meeting that county staff had, that
Debrah Preston had, my indication or my -- I've been advised that
Miss Preston advised the audience that as to the Bob Taylor
property, that, quote, the county already has a buyer for the Bob
Taylor Chevrolet property.
My query to you today is, are you going to condemn Bob
Taylor's property and are you going to condemn Thalheimer's
property? I think they're entitled to an answer on that.
It appears that there will be a chilling effect on the values.
We mentioned that in the Planning Commission meeting, and the
concern is what can occur in this area when the property values
are frozen or chilled. It makes it a lot easier for local
government acquisition to try to arrive at a lesser value and then
turn around and sell that acquired property to another private
developer over the objections of the existing property owner.
Those comments are referenced in the Planning Commission
minutes and we'd like to make those part of these proceedings
and my comments today, in an effort to save time, as I see the
clock is winding down.
We are concerned also about the fact there's not been an
opportunity for substantive public input. The revisions to this
comprehensive plan language were -- I had a November 20th
version, I had a November 29th version, I had a December 6th
version, all different, and therefore, I believe meaningful
substantive input has not been provided to this particular area.
Additionally, there's not a listing of a range of commercial
uses, which is curious. It says, these are a range of residential
uses, these are types of mixed uses. These are non-commercial,
non-residential uses that will be allowed. If I may, Mr. Chairman,
but the comprehensive plan language does not say, these are the
Page 97
December 12, 2000
types of commercial uses that are allowed, and even more
interesting is, although it says in the preamble, I guess it's what
they giveth with one hand, they taketh away with another, the
preamble to the comp. plan language says, the intent of this
overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban
area where urban services are available, yet paragraph eight
specifically states -- it's a flag, it's a warning flag, another
chilling effect, especially since there is no vesting language in
this particular comprehensive plan language. Paragraph eight
states that existing zoning districts for some properties within
this area are inconsistent with the uses, densities and
development standards allowed. These properties are allowed to
develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning,
which seems to be contrary to the other resolution, until such
time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses,
densities and development standards.
I think that there's indication this property's going to be
acquired by condemnation. I'd like to have that question
answered today. Is this board planning on acquiring Bob Taylor
Chevrolet's -- or Bob Taylor's property and Thalheimer's property
by condemnation? We object to inclusion in this area. We object
to adoption of the comprehensive plan. We believe it does
constitute a taking under the constitutional provisions of the
Florida and U.S. Constitutions and applicable statutory
provisions of Florida law.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And respectfully, Mr. Pires, if we
were doing that today, you'd be right, but what we're doing today
is adopting the comprehensive plan amendment.
MR. PIRES: So the question to that -- the answer to that
question of whether the board is contemplating condemnation
for this particular area?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is something that this board
will decide when the question is put in front of it, if it ever is, but
it's not -- it's not --
MR. PIRES: I guess the question is, how does that square
with the statement made by staff, it's been reported to me, I
wasn't there, that the county already has a buyer for Bob Taylor's
property?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wasn't there either, so let's ask
her.
Page 98
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll defer to staff to try to get that
answer, but let's see --
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Appreciate it. If you have any other questions, I'll --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. PRESTON: We did have a meeting last night regarding
the Bayshore zoning overlay district. I don't remember saying
that I -- we had a buyer for Bob Taylor's property. I believe what
I had said was that we had the mini triangle and we had received
one developer's proposal for that and that we were taking that to
the board in January, and Commissioner Fiala was at that
meeting. I don't know if she was there during this discussion or
not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't remember hearing anything
but what -- but the fact that you were working on the triangle
area, but I never heard you saying something about a buyer or
anything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that should make them very
reassured.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. There were other people
there too.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Again, I think there may be more
misinformation out here than there is facts and these are gonna
come forward and everyone -- all these will be publicly noticed
and there will be an opportunity for discussion here in front of
this board, but also that there's going to be additional public
hearings or meetings where people can make all these inputs so
that we can get these issues resolved -- hopefully before they
even come in front of this board there will be a consensus of
agreement of what's going on.
Some of the terminology, I understand, you may take
personally, but it has to be incorporated, as we have said before,
in order to qualify. It doesn't mean it's real. It says you have to
deal with regulations in order to get the approvals, and that's all
we're trying to do so we can move forward to the bigger picture.
So I think that's where we are at this point, if I understand Miss
Preston correctly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And does this mainly focus on the
Chlumpsky property, the rezone, is that --
MS. PRESTON: This amendment doesn't have anything to do
Page 99
December 12, 2000
with any kind of eminent domain or anything like that at this
time. What this does is provide for some additional density. It
does provide for additional density on Bob Taylor's property and
Thalheimer's, if for some reason we don't move forward with the
mini triangle project and those are left to be redeveloped in a
different scenario, so it allows for increased density on the north
side of U.S. 41, as well as the south side of 41.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So it really enhances the Bob Taylor
and Thalheimer properties in terms of densities for the future, so
we're not taking away. I hear we're adding to the value and it
will be a determination of how it's developed, but we're not in
there with eminent domain, not in there trying to take something
away from somebody.
MS. PRESTON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Kandice
Grace, followed by Earl Stults, followed by Bret Gerke.
MS. GRACE: Hi, my name is Kandice Grace. I live on Lunar
Street. First of all, I want to say that the palm trees and the
cobblestone sidewalks are nice, okay, but that's the exterior.
Where we live at, I have neighbors in here -- we live off of
Bayshore back in the area where you can't see any of our homes,
and granted, they are -- a lot of them are mobile homes.
This is a neighborhood, okay? What we have in our
community is, we have a family. We have people that look out
for other people's kids. We have people that look out for other
people's homes. I have a neighbor right behind me that mows
county property to keep it up, and only because we have pride in
our community. It's our homes, you know. We have everything
right there.
I work seven minutes from my home. We have a school, we
have parks. That's very nice, but if you were to take what we
have, which is natural waterways, which there's very few left in
East Naples -- redevelopment, to me, means taking out the old
and putting in the new, and that's scary for me, okay? That's
very scary. We have prime property back there and who wouldn't
want it?
I understand that, and I am all for change. Like I said, the
exterior's beautiful, you know. I have a four bedroom home.
There's no way that I can do that again. There's just no way that
Page100
December 12, 2000
I can do that again. You know, I have an eight year old daughter
that has excelled since she has gotten back to Avalon
Elementary. That would be taking her - everything from her. Her
world is going to that school. My world is seeing my children
happy and we're happy with being able to let my daughters
outside to play and not worry that somebody's gonna go along --
we're one quarter of a mile down the road, right next to Windstar
where I once lived briefly in an apartment complex, you couldn't
leave a bike outside for two minutes and it would be stolen, and
here I am right down the street in this beautiful area that has
prime property that anybody would want, but the fact of the
matter is, it's history there.
That was one of the first developments on Bayshore, first
subdivision, 1962, I think it was. A couple came in and bought,
laid out all these pieces of property, sold, gave people the
opportunity to be a homeowner for the first time, to raise their
children in a home that they owned, and I'm one of those people
that was able to benefit from that 30 years later and I hope to be
able to do that for somebody else, but I won't be able to do that if
-- change requires taking everything out of there and putting up
for whoever, for Windstar or whoever.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think what we're trying to
communicate, ma'am, we're not trying to take anything from
anybody. We couldn't agree with you more, but if we do things
that enhance the value of where you live, that should really be
security for you in the future, and I don't think you would object
that -- if your property prices went up and that you felt
comfortable with that. I don't think we're trying to do anything
here to hurt that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Kandice happens to be living in
a neighborhood that we're all encouraging right now,
homeowner. What we're trying to do is find places. You're in an
ideal location, as are the people on Jeepers and so forth, who --
what we're trying to do is allow people to be homeowners in an
affordable community so that they don't have to be renters
anymore and at somebody else's mercy. So see, you just qualify
-- you're just in there solidly with -- everything that we're
promoting is home ownership.
MS. GRACE: Okay. Three quarters of our subdivision is
homeowners.
Page 101
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So see, you've got it made.
MS. GRACE: What scares me though is that I had no idea
that this was gonna happen, and again, like I say, I have not
heard anything yet that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But see, ma'am, this particular issue
that's in front of us is only increasing the density in one area, in a
commercial area. It's not talking about your area. That's the key
here, and I think that's where a lot of confusion exists today. So,
you know, we appreciate and value your comments, but we're
not here to hurt you.
MS. GRACE: Okay. All I can say is, I didn't even know that
this was gonna happen today. I work the midnight shift. I've
been up all day waiting to get up here. The only reason I found
out that this was gonna happen was by the letter that was
passed out to everybody else, and actually, I was cussing Jim
(sic) Ingram because I just woke up and I didn't know what the
letter meant.
All I know is that my dad predicted many years ago that
something was gonna happen and this area of Naples was gonna
be taken down and it was gonna be redeveloped and it wasn't
going to be done to benefit anybody that was there now, and I
will speak like everybody else that has been up here, you know,
we're gonna do what we have to do to ensure that that doesn't
happen. You know, I am for change, you know, but when it
comes to change, taking -- you know, like she said herself right
there, if it came down to it and it was forced, that we would have
to be forced away from our homes. We've got a lot of people that
would be terribly upset.
MS. PRESTON: I'd just like to remind the board that we had
several workshops for over a year on developing this plan, and in
the Bayshore redevelopment section under the goals, it talks
about residential development, medium intense residential
development with a variety of different residential types, and the
intent is to support that and to improve and upgrade the
residential character of these areas. So again, the
redevelopment plan, which again, is a separate issue than what's
before you here today, does provide for upgrading and
maintaining those residential neighborhoods through other
incentives that will come back to this board at a later date.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what we're finding today is,
Page 102
December 12, 2000
we've done a poor job of communicating with the people there
who we seek to partner with and we are gonna have to do better
to find out how these people didn't get on our mailing list.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please?
MR. OI. LIFF: Earl Stults, followed by Bret Gerke, followed by
Henry Tesno.
MR. STULTS: Afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I've been in
the contracting business for about 27 years down here in Naples
and I've seen how fast that this area has grown, and basically, a
lot of smaller areas get pushed out. I really don't see a real high
development over on Bayshore, but I do see some, and I agree
with Donna, she -- she said that she was with the Sheriff's
Department, as far as cleaning up that area and I applaud you on
that and the area has cleaned up quite a bit, but some of the
other issues that bother me, the code enforcement, they're
getting very strong armed over there as far as complying with
some of the issues that -- you know, a lot of the guys that I know,
they have air boats, they have boats, you know, they have older
model cars and if you don't have insurance or you don't have
them tagged or what all, if you don't have a backyard, you've got
to keep them on the side of the house or what all, but these
issues, they come in and tag you. What else are we supposed to
do? We can't afford rental units like a lot of people do, but -- and
we try to follow most of the regulations, but also on code
enforcement, I'm talking about, you know, being able to come in
in four or five years and say, look, your trailers are obsolete, your
fire protection is no good, the area that you're living in with all
these mobile homes, one fire could take out ten trailers, and
that's understandable, but basically, I look at code enforcement
pushing us out more than anything because, you know, if you're
not gonna let us upgrade or do anything to our homes or any --
but the understanding there is, code enforcement is basically
what I'm worried about. That's one of the issues that would push
everybody out, you know. You can condemn somebody's house if
they don't have a sprinkler system in it. You can condemn
somebody's house if the septic tank comes up in the front, you
know, but--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand all these issues and I
really value what you have to say, but this particular issue in
front of us is dealing with none of those issues and a public
Page 103
December t2, 2000
meeting could address all of those. Public comment could
address any of those in front of this commission. So I really
encourage you that we will work to set up public meetings to
deal with these issues, but it's not in front of this particular
agenda item now, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I have
to stay with the agenda item, so please, if you're coming to
speak about other issues other than this, we value it, but there
has to be another format for it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like we need to have a
code enforcement workshop in the area. I hear that, and I'm
going to work with staff to get that done.
MR. STULTS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's Bret Gerke, followed by Henry
Tesno, followed by Jill Weaver.
MR. GERKE: Hello. I'm Bret Gerke. I live on Connecticut
Avenue and Shadowlawn. I have a transmission shop behind my
-- behind my house. All this strip area, you have transmission
shops, you've got paint shops. You want to clean all this up.
You want to put condominiums up. I've got them going up on the
corner of my house. Right around the corner, you can look at it.
I mean, it's a big eyesore. I've got a church there. We've got
good people. I have a neighbor. We all have lots here.
Now, the problem that I'm having is that if you're going to
keep coming down the street by building things up in that
triangle, what's gonna stop you from jumping the fence into my
backyard? Are you gonna tell me -- put it in writing that I can
keep my house and that you're not gonna take it away from me in
any way, shape or form? Me and my fiancee, we bought this
house seven years ago. We love our place. I want to keep it. I
want to retire. I want to die there. That's it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Henry Tesno will be followed by Jill Weaver,
who will be followed by, the best I can make out, it is Lou from
Connecticut Avenue.
MR. TESNO: Hi. I'm Henry Tesno. I'm disabled. I was
disabled last year. If you take my house, where would you like
me to move to, you know? I own my house and I don't have to
rent. So I mean, I don't know where else to live if you take my
house, and I didn't know about this neighborhood being a
Page 104
December 12, 2000
blighted neighborhood and -- I mean, to me, it's not a blighted
neighborhood. It's not Windstar, but it's my house and -- and just
like the man said, if you can sign a legal document today that
you're not gonna take my house, then I know that you guys aren't
lying, but right now, I have a feeling that you're lying, you know,
because all politicians don't tell the truth, and if you do take my
house, how big of a gift are you guys going to be receiving
yourselves? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's Jill Weaver, followed by, again,
I think it's Lou. It's at 3063 Connecticut Avenue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If that person's still here, would they
please step to the on deck circle? If not, let's keep moving and
moving the next people up.
MS. WEAVER: Hi. My name is Jill Weaver. I live on Lunar
Street as well. Debrah Prescott (sic) has just stated that you
guys do -- you know, eminent domain is in place, so the
groundwork is being laid in place if you go ahead and take the
Bob Chevrolet (sic) and change it and the Thalheimer's and -- or
like Pamela Mac'Kie said, that it is possible that this gentleman's
strip mall is in jeopardy if he doesn't comply, and what will the
compliances be, but if they take that property under
condemnation, then the groundwork and the precedent is set for
the other properties to be possibly taken if, you know, they're not
100 percent, you know, up to the standards of this committee,
not -- not necessarily the standards of code enforcement and the
mixed -- the mixed ideas have been put out here and, you know,
the question is, you know, if the groundwork is in place and
Debrah did say that, you know, the committee does have the
eminent domain in place, which means that if, you know, at all
possible, it could be taken as a last resort. The properties -- I
mean, it's in place where it could happen. Not that it would
happen or wouldn't happen, but it's possible that it can happen.
Is this -- it's true that it could happen?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, and just so you know though
MS. WEAVER: So these people are unaware. I mean, I know
everybody's saying -- excuse me. Everybody's saying like, no, it's
not gonna happen and you're looking like, oh, you poor things,
like, you know, like it's not gonna happen, but it is possible, you
Page 105
December 12, 2000
know, to be aware that it is possible, correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is, but if I could -- let me tell
you though, this board already has eminent domain powers. We
already have that power. The good news for people is that we
can't just exercise it because we don't like the looks of your
house. We have to show a public purpose. It's really a difficult
process, a legal process that has to be gone through, and if you
look at the history of this board, you'll see that we haven't ever
done it and I guess that's all I could ask you to look at is, we
already have eminent domain power. We are not getting any new
powers. We already have it. We're not using it and it's not -- I
wouldn't support using it to take anybody's home.
MS. WEAVER: Okay. You have mentioned, what is the exact
agenda for today, in a nutshell, the exact --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: To increase the density on one parcel
of this.
MS. WEAVER: And that one parcel is the top corner in the
little triangle up there?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Chlumpsky property.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Chlumpsky property. That's the only
purpose.
MS. WEAVER: So now was that property -- now, that's going
to be redeveloped up to your standards. Now, very close by is
the Bob Taylor and the other people's properties, Thalheimer's.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's true, and by this move today,
we would increase their property value.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in January, we'll look at
whether or not we're going to accept a proposal to redevelop
that property.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We don't know at this point. The
people bordering the Chlumpsky property are all in favor of this
because they know that it will enhance it and I have seen the
overview of it and it will -- density is not necessarily a bad thing.
It says we're going to make it look better and it's going to
enhance this neighborhood, but that's the only issue we're
dealing with today. We would no more waltz into a neighborhood
and say, you know, we don't like your houses, we're going to
take them by eminent domain. That is the last resort of a
government, and whether it's the county or the state or the
federal, no one really wants to do that.
Page t06
December 12, 2000
Now, I will never say that we won't somewhere, sometime in
this county for the good of the public, good of the public overall,
but to sit here this morning and tell you that I have eyes on
taking your properties, no. That is not my mode. It is not
something that I would encourage or do, and my voting record on
this commission will sustain that.
It's just -- and I can understand the fear tactics that were
used to make people feel that this will happen, and I don't blame
you for being concerned and I think that we've done -- I agree
with Commissioner Mac'Kie, we've done a terrible job at
communicating with this neighborhood. We have to get this out
here and get public input and we have to deal with it so everyone
has a much better understanding what all this means and what
the benefits are to the entire neighborhood, and that means
everybody in here, and it includes Mr. Ingram. I'm not -- you
know, I'm not looking for lawsuits with anyone. I've taken some
of your time and I apologize, but I'm only trying to say, I feel like
we're failing in communicating to the public today.
MS. WEAVER: Yeah, this is true, because I was never
notified that there was even going to be a hearing here today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's because it didn't have anything to
do with your area. It was one small part of this and that's why
we were overwhelmed by this.
MS. WEAVER: It doesn't have anything to do with my area
right this second, but being that you do have the, you know,
capacity to take the property if you wanted to, just that it's in
place, you know, and if this goes forward in a positive way, I
mean, I'd love to see the place look better. You've done a great
job with the bricks and the palm trees, they're beautiful, but now
where the houses are, I have -- my morn owns her own house. I
have my house I own. I have a friend who owns a house and my
aunt owns her house in this area and it's, you know, a deep
concern that it's a family neighborhood, like some of the people
have said, and with just the power in place that it could be taken
is scary.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ma'am, I understand that and I did
take some of your time, but your message did not fall on deaf
ears this morning. We have heard you. We value you and we're
going to take some measures here that I think will make you feel
a lot more comfortable with this.
Page107
December 12, 2000
MS. WEAVER: Thank you
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please?
MR. OI. LIFF: Following the next speaker would be A.J.
Koch, and then David Emmett.
MR. STASKO: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is
Tom Stasko (phonetic). I live on Connecticut Avenue and I first
found out that the board was having this ordinance brought up
for vote -- voting, I believe, or passage of the ordinance today,
Friday in watching the code development --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Planning Commission.
MR. STASKO: -- the Planning Commission, and I was again
reminded this morning, doing some yard work and that's why I
don't have a jacket or a tie on, so please excuse that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Your yard looks better than mine
probably.
MR. STASKO: I did pick up a copy -- or had the executive
summary photocopied. As far as being -- having an intelligent
question or two in regards to this, I've had a couple hours to read
this. There's a lot of documentation that's referred to in this, but
is not available to me. I have called the development office on
several occasions to find out the status of this triangle
proposition. I have been told that the person I need to speak
with is in a meeting or at a seminar or otherwise not available,
would I like their voice mail. Sometimes I have left a message.
Sometimes I have received a response from them, sometimes I
have not.
Again, in reading from this on page 20, it says the purpose of
the subdistrict is to provide for higher densities. I've heard -- I've
read up to a maximum of 16. I have heard to a maximum of 12.
Excuse me, there's something there.
Attachment Exhibit A, page 33, it's a copy of a lot of
statistics having to do with dwelling units now and dwelling units
proposed. Actually, the dwelling units, according to this
document, which is not dated, and I don't know where the stats
came from, whether they're 1990 or 1970 stats, it's referring to
increasing the housing by 25 percent. With 6,000 units out there
approximately now, you're affecting the lives of 10,000
individuals at least, at two people per unit, for an increase of
25,000.
It's been shown to me this morning that a lot of the
Page 108
December 12, 2000
individuals had no idea -- have no idea what's going on. I wasn't
notified. I have questions in here, and for me to speak really
intelligently, I need to sit down and it's gonna take more than
five minutes to understand this to come up with proper,
intelligent questions.
Exhibit D on page 40, it uses income and other facts from
1989. Excuse me, is that -- we're dealing in nineteen -- 11 years
ago, and the commissioners are going to vote on 11 year old
information? I would think that the commissioners would want
to be more informed.
There are, again, as the attorney mentioned prior to me,
there are D.C.A. objections about increasing the density in this
area. Therefore, I would like -- I would request that the
commission give the people that are affected mostly by this, that
is the residents, the opportunity to research and to understand
more of what's going on by opting to put this off for 30 days
before voting on it. Please give us, the people that have to live
with your decisions, time to understand it a little bit better.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's A.J. Koch, followed by David
Emmett. Following Mr. Emmett will be Norman Bell. Mr. Emmett?
MR. EMMETT: Hi. My name's Dave Emmett. I live on Lunar
Street and, as you know, everybody's been a little upset here
about what's going on and I thank you for your time for letting me
speak, and I do believe you, that you do not want to take our
homes and that was our main concern and we do need better
communications with you, and that's all I have to say, and have a
great holiday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God bless you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Emmett will be Norman Bell.
Following Mr. Bell will be Chuck Gunther.
MR. BELL: My haree's Norman Bell and my main concern is
that you're calling the area a blight. What I'd like to know about
this blight area, are they referring to the trailer parks and what
do they have in store for the trailer parks in particular?
MS. PRESTON: There's the conditions of blight that are
listed in the Florida Statute, and those range from inadequate
Page 109
December 12, 2000
stormwater management, lack of sewers, lack of sidewalks, lack
of lighting, so there's a wide range of conditions. We did not
pinpoint mobile home parks particularly when we did this. This
was a general view of the whole neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Debrah, what is the other phrase
that's used to -- our consultants --
MS. PRESTON: There's also -- you can have slum conditions
versus blighted conditions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that would have been
worse?
MS. PRESTON: Findings of necessity?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. PRESTON: We had to do a findings of necessity in order
to qualify as a CRA area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And one of them was we had to
use that nasty word blight. None of us believe this is a blighted
area. Nobody thinks there's anything but a wonderful
neighborhood that we're seeking to enhance.
MR. BELL: Okay. What I'm concerned about is the trailer
park itself, whether you want to call them blights or what, but
what's in store for the -- do they have anything in particular in
store for the trailer parks?
MS. PRESTON: No, we don't. Our plan just talks about --
MR. BELL: I mean, we don't have sidewalks there and things
like this, so --
MS. PRESTON: Right, and the whole idea of the program
here -- and I'm sorry if you all did not attend any of our
redevelopment meetings that were held last year. We tried to do
our best to get the notice out to people to come. We've had over
100 people at those meetings. We had several meetings leading
up to the development of this plan. We had a number of
meetings in the Gateway Triangle area. Those people came to
us and said, we want to preserve our residential neighborhood
east of Shadowlawn Drive. That's what the plan says, to protect
and preserve that neighborhood, and along Bayshore Drive, it's
also been identified as a residential neighborhood.
What the CRA is supposed to do is to provide you with some
resources, some other incentives so that people can upgrade
their houses and maintain their houses. You can have a low
interest loan to do some renovations on your property. Perhaps
Page 110
December 12, 2000
drainage is an issue along your side streets, so we can look at
improving those infrastructure improvements, and all of that's to
upgrade the neighborhood in general, not specifically a mobile
home park versus Linda Avenue or Becker Avenue. This is a long
range plan. It lasts for 30 years.
We're in the process of trying to put in some tools to help
implement this plan. Today's amendment is one of those tools.
It doesn't pinpoint anything specifically. Tomorrow we have the
Bayshore mixed use overlay. That's another tool. In January,
we'll be coming to the board asking them to look at other
incentives and also to appoint a CRA advisory committee for the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area, and hopefully that will help
with making sure the communication goes out to everyone.
When we do a zoning overlay, we send a notice to everyone
that's impacted by that zoning overlay. When we're talking about
the large CRA area, it's more difficult because we're talking
about thousands and thousands of mailings that we're doing. We
had done that originally. So we're hoping that with the advisory
committee, that we can have some pinpoint people that can go
back into their neighborhoods and explain to them what's going
on. A lot of this is communication and we hope that in January,
we can better facilitate that.
MR. BELL: Okay. In this redevelopment program, are they--
do they have plans, like with some of our mobile homes that are
older, are we going to be able to pull them out and build a house
in there or are we going to have to put another trailer in or what?
MS. PRESTON: As we do the zoning overlays, and we
started with this small area around Bayshore Drive, we'll be
looking at other zoning issues along Bayshore because, as you
know, there are some sort of incompatible uses that are next to
probably your mobile home or next to some single family homes.
MR. BELL: See, I'm not concerned about what the use -- like
I'm living in one of the older mobile homes in the area and I'm
sure you could come in and find something wrong with it and
condemn it. Are we gonna be able to like pull that out of there
and put another trailer in or are we going to be able to build a
house in that area or --
MS. PRESTON: We're going to look at that as we progress
with this implementation phase, and when we do that, we would
Page 111
December 12, 2000
invite everyone that owned property in that particular area to
come and tell us what their concerns are and what some of their
recommendations are.
MR. BELL: Because my problem is, they're small lots and, I
mean, are they gonna restrict me, tell me I'm not going to be able
to build a home or put another trailer in there because my lot's
too small so they're gonna take it?
MS. PRESTON: As an example, that's what we found when
we did the Bayshore mixed use zoning overlay that's going to the
board on Wednesday. They are zoned for multi family, six units
per acre, but those lots are too small by today's standards, so
the zoning overlay that we're proposing changes those standards
so that they can build a duplex. That's allowed in their deed
restricted community.
So those are the issues that -- I can't tell you today what
we're going to do to your particular piece of property, but I will
tell you that as we progress with this plan that we'll meet with
individual property owners and come up with a plan that the
neighborhood likes and that can accomplish the goals of
redevelopment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' And let me just tell you too, sir,
that one of the -- one of the foundations that's already in the plan
is that -- you know, as we started this about four years ago or so,
talking about it, you know, the slate was clean and it could have
been that the neighborhood said, we want you to tear everything
down and build up Port Royal. Well, that's not what we want to
do. The foundation's already in the plan that we want to protect
a working class neighborhood and protect the residential areas
and enhance the community, and I'm committed to doing that.
MR. BELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Bell will be Chuck Gunther.
Following Chuck Gunther will be Dolores Addison.
MR. GUNTHER: My name is Chuck Gunther. I'm a resident
here in the Gateway Triangle. I've been involved with most of
these meetings from the beginning, going to a lot of these
meetings. Some of the problems we had back then are the same
as we have right now. The main one that has come up here a
few times, and for once, I agree with Pam Mac'Kie, we have very
poor dissemination of information. We have to let our people
Page112
December 12, 2000
know in this area what's happened, not there's a meeting, there's
a meeting there, this meeting doesn't pertain to you. No, all the
meetings pertain to us.
I think we're being given, you know, a left ball here, a right
ball there. We're not being told or given the full truth. When
people talk about condemnation, all this stuff, it can happen. We
know it can happen. When we see a bid go out for a piece of
property as large as the mini triangle before the property is sold
or before the owners are spoken to, that scares me, it scares the
living hell out of me and I think it should scare everybody,
including the people sitting up behind that bench right there
because it can happen to them. This should not happen.
We have a right to have our property.
The information -- you want to get information out to people?
Mailing it directly to the people might help. It didn't in the
beginning because we had people come to the meetings that did
not get letters. We had blocks of people who did not get letters.
It was almost like it was selective mailings. We don't want
selective mailings. If we have to -- I told people in the beginning,
I'll set up like a block captain thing in my area. I'll take care of
the triangle. I'll make sure every person in that triangle gets the
information and I'll make sure I have every person in that triangle
knowing what's going on because they have to know, and I don't
think -- I think if you go a day without people knowing what's
happening, you're going to have problems, you have
misunderstandings. I don't think these are misunderstandings. I
think it's true. The building blocks are being put in place piece
by piece to get to a position where -- I don't want increased
density. People don't want a neighbor right next door. We're
saying four. In says in the plan 12. It says -- it's in black and
white, 12.
You go back in some of these plans, every plan I've gotten,
it says revision, revision, revision. I called over to the county the
other day after the hearing we had here with the planning people.
I said, I'd like the paperwork that was here for the meeting. It
was faxed to me. Very nice. Right on the fax, on the page, the
cover page, it says, this map is subject to review, subject to
change. Well, they already had the meeting. You don't change
something after you've had the meeting, I'm sorry. It doesn't
work that way. If it does, it's not legal.
Page 113
December 12, 2000
I'd like to see a lot of these things work. I mean, we all
want change, we all want to get better, but it's not gonna work if
you're fighting the people and that's what's happening. People
are getting mad and people can shake their heads all they want,
it's not gonna help. We can see these things happening.
We know if you build the Taj Mahal next to me, my house is
not gonna stay there long because it's going to be pushed out,
and that's what's happening. We're building bigger, bigger,
better, better, and the little guy like us -- we're the oldest area in
this town. We're the area that's been here for years. This
courthouse was built here because it's high, dry land, but yet
we're all in a flood plain, we're told, and we have to pay extra
insurance. Something is a little amiss there, but, you know, this
is a prime piece of property for all of us.
The feeling I think a lot of us have, and it's been told
straight out to us at these meetings, the county wants to help
the developers to develop this property and they would go to any
length to do that. Now, we can see they'd go to any length when
the put a bid out for a piece of property like the mini triangle
before the owners of that property are notified. That's any
length, as far as I'm concerned, and to me, it should be illegal.
Let the owner of that property know first. That's a problem.
If they can do it to people like -- you know, an area like that,
people like Bob Taylor, like Thalheimer's, a homeowner doesn't
have a snowbali's chance in hell. We're not gonna make it. We
want to stand up here now and be heard. I'd like to see this
whole thing postponed. Don't take a vote today.
Donna Fiala was on the -- I believe on the CRA board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bayshore M.S.T.U.
MR. GUNTHER: Bayshore M.S.T.U. That pertained to this
right here. To me, I'd like to see her step down and not vote on
this because I think she's very closely involved in it. I'm sorry,
that, to me, would be a conflict of interest. You bring something
forward -- the only people that group is answerable to is this
board. If you're answerable to one board, don't vote on what
comes up when you're on the other board. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please?
MR. OI. LIFF: Next speaker is Dolores Addison. Following
Miss Addison will be Jack Conroy, and then it will be Kenneth
and Jennifer Skaggs.
Page 114
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: David, could you help her with
the microphone, please?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure can.
MS. ADDISON: My name is Dolores Addison. I live on
Jeepers Drive. I've lived there for almost 32 years and my
children were raised there and we don't want to have our house
taken from us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's Jack Conroy, followed by
Kenneth and Jennifer Skaggs, followed by Irv Barr.
MR. CONROY: My name is Jack Conroy. I've been a Naples
resident for 37 years. I've been involved in commercial
investment real estate that entire period. I'm also the owner of a
piece of property at the corner of Davis and U.S. 41. It used to
be called the Burger King. It used to be called many other
things. We are just redeveloping that property.
I was also involved in the Fifth Avenue redevelopment effort,
and I want to share just a few things with -- with other people in
the room here. When Fifth Avenue -- the redevelopment district
actually stretches from 7th Avenue North down to Sixth Avenue
South and from the other side of Goodlette Road to the other side
of Eighth Street. That area was declared a blighted area by the
City of Naples, just as the words have to appear in the CRA
legislation. So I think the issue of the use of the word blight is
unfortunately required by the statute and it doesn't imply that
anybody's house is not as nice as perhaps one would think.
The second thing -- the second thing is that community
redevelopment agencies, I think -- I know that we had the right of
condemnation down in the City of Naples. It was never used and
never, to the best of my knowledge, never anticipated that it
would be used. The place where the fear arises is the fact that
there is at least one case in the little triangle where that fear has
been promulgated by a developer saying, we're gonna buy your
property. Now, without -- without any indication that there is
going to be a negotiation, a discussion, whatever, and we also
hear the fact that a developer is going to be appointed or at least
proposals are going to be received next month.
I'd like to propose that -- first off, that with relation to the
issue on the table as to the modification of the comprehensive
plan, I think that is an appropriate move. I have -- I personally
Page 115
December 12, 2000
believe that that is a move in the right direction and we have, in
this meeting, have been driven by fear to confuse possible
condemnation and apparent distrust of government with the
issue of whether or not the comp. plan should be changed.
There have been a large number of meetings relative to both
the comp. plan and the -- and the redevelopment idea, so I think
the staff has done a decent job in terms of attempting to
communicate, but there's a lot of people to communicate with
and maybe it wasn't done as well as it should have been.
The central issue that I have some concern about is the fact
that -- the qualifications of the developer who is going to attempt
to accumulate the property ought to be quite rigid. The
developer ought to have had significant experience with projects
of this kind.
Number two, I would propose that you have a provision that
the developer present a -- a financing commitment
simultaneously with the acceptance of his project.
Thirdly, I would recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners stipulate that condemnation is like the last thing
they want to do. Let the market forces work and I don't think
that anybody would complain. This is precisely what happened
on Fifth Avenue. Market forces worked. The change of the
regulatory elements went into place and it was a sufficiently
good success that the Naples City Council decided that too much
success is not a good thing, so they're trying to undo it.
The central concern of eminent domain, I think, can
probably be resolved by a strong statement, which we've heard
all day today, not only with relation to the houses in the
Bayshore area, but also relative to the small triangle. I. et market
forces work. Chances are, it's gonna work well. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's Kenneth Skaggs, followed by
Irv Barr, will be followed by Grace Thomason.
MR. SKAGGS: Hello. My name is Kenneth Skaggs and I live
on Jeepers Drive and I am a little concerned about how -- the
miscommunication between what is going on and what is
happening in my neighborhood. The sidewalks up on Bayshore
and all look very beautiful and, you know, the botanical garden, I
think, has a good chance at it if they would maybe trim their
Page 116
December 12, 2000
fence line and keep it growing out of my place.
I would like to say that, you know, the code changes and
things like that do kind of worry me because I do live in an older
trailer and, you know, to have the code changed on me could,
you know, condemn my home and put me out very easily, along
with all my other neighbors that live down that road, and I'd like
you to take that into consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's Irv Barr, followed by Grace
Thomason, followed by Barbara Jones.
MR. BARR: Right now, I don't live in the orange area. I'm
with most of these people. I don't want it to turn orange.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name, sir?
MR. BARR: Irv Barr. I live on Harvest Court. I have a feeling
the way it's being talked about today, that it will turn orange
sometime within the next couple of years. The triangle, for
instance, has been mentioned several times. Most of those
people in the triangle don't want to sell. They do probably want
to improve, but how can the county run an ad for that property
when it doesn't belong to them? This is what I'll probably wake
up to some morning at my home, saying that my home is for sale.
I know you say no, but you are politicians. I don't trust
politicians. Can we say that we won't -- I won't see this at my
home, you will not sell my property?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I will never vote for an eminent
domain to take a residential property in this area.
MR. BARR: But you will rezone it and make it so that I have
to tear it down and put something else up in its --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir, I couldn't do that if I
wanted to. I could rezone it, but I -- but you're grandfathered in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, we just had a -- can I get
on -- in Goodland, we did a zoning overlay and everybody was
equally as fearful because all of their lots are small. There's a
lot of trailers down there, a lot of things that don't conform, and
finally what they realized through a lot of these meetings is,
riobody's going to go in there and tell them they have to change,
everything was -- the only thing that they wanted to make sure
on this overlay was, if their house, their trailer, on their smaller
lot that isn't conforming, if it blew down from a hurricane, they
could put the same trailer on the same lot, and that's what the
Page 117
December 12, 2000
overlay assured them they could do. So actually, it gave them
the right to do that rather than to conform to regular standards.
It was a plus, not a minus.
MR. BARR: I understand that, but I can't understand this.
COMMISSIONER FIAI.A: I don't know what that is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do, and I can see how that
added to the fear of what's been out there today, because that is
-- well, Debrah, tell him what that is.
MR. BARR: This is not your property, but you're running an
ad for it.
MS. PRESTON: That's to request for developer interest in
redeveloping that project.
MR. BARR: It's not yours.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir, and here's the thing,
whoever responded to that, they'll come to this board in January
and we can say, we like that plan or we don't like that plan, and
if we like that plan, we say to that developer, now, go see if you
can buy the land.
MR. BARR: And if they still don't want to sell, will you, at
that time, condemn it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to be -- I can't say with
as much certainty as I am willing to say about a home, but it
would be the last thing I would ever want to do, to take
commercial property by eminent domain. I don't want to see that
happen.
MR. BARR: I'm not commercial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir, and I am not gonna take
residential.
MR. BARR: The other thing I do have to bring up is, I would
be like to be informed about these things. I have no problems
receiving tax bills. I get those regular. I have no problem
receiving water bills. I get those regular. A little flier that goes
in there, they know exactly where the streets are, and I want to
be included because I'm included in that area. It's not orange,
but I want to be included.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell Debrah. She'll put you on the
list.
MR. BARR: Okay. But you could probably put a little flier in
the water bill for free.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Pam, a suggestion might be to --
Page t18
December 12, 2000
not just the water bill, because maybe the right person might not
get it, but to every property owner that is out there that's listed
by record, maybe send them an update at this point in time. You
can't depend upon the newspaper and you definitely can't
depend upon our local news media to be able to get the facts
across, and apprise them of where we are with this situation and
what the possible scenario of events may be down the road, and
I think you're going to put their -- them to rest, and then when it
comes time for the meetings, let's go back and drag every one of
them into it and make them part of this process so they don't feel
so alienated by it.
MR. BARR: I did get a notice -- they had -- they're building a
condominium 300 yards away from my house. I did get a notice
that they're building that building. I have no idea why.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going to do better.
MR. BARR: The other thing is, I do feel that Donna should
recuse herself from this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Do you know what the
Bayshore M.S.T.U. is, by the way?
MR. BARR: It started this, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. The Bayshore M.S.T.U. is
something that we all, as property owners in Bayshore, voted
upon ourselves. We decided to tax ourselves three mills to
beautify the street for three years, and that's -- that's when they
created this Bayshore -- I wasn't there at the time, but I owned
property. I owned two pieces of property and -- and that
Bayshore M.S.T.U., or municipal special taxing unit, was then -- I
believe the tax ends this year, and in that time, they collected
1.5 million in order to change the appearance of the street.
There was -- it was another board, and then they had
somebody drop off, and being that I owned property and, of
course, I wasn't running for any county -- I never dreamed of
doing this, by the way, they asked if I would serve on the
committee because I'd been so active on Bayshore. I said, sure,
I would, so what we did was, we picked out the design for the
trees and the sidewalks and the -- and what it was going to look
like when it was finished. That's what we did on the Bayshore
M.S.T.U.
MR. BARR: Thank you. I never dreamed of doing this either.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please?
Page 119
December 12, 2000
MR. OL. LIFF: Next speaker's Grace Thomason, followed by
Barbara Jones, followed by Mary Taylor.
MS. JONES: I think Grace is not here. I'm Barbara Jones. I
am representing my mother and other owners of approximately
100 properties in the Kelly Lake Mobile Home subdivision. Some
of these people live on small incomes. Some of them have lived
in their homes for 40 years and they wish to end their days there.
Concerning the rezoning issue, they've become exceedingly
alarmed at the possibility of being forced to leave their homes in
their old age. By the way, I did call the county, the appropriate
person in the county, yesterday for these answers, but I never
got a call back, so that's why I'm here bothering you.
I'm sorry to have to ask this question, but it is in this letter
that we got. Is it true that Pam Mac'Kie's parents' mobile home
park is excluded from the rezoning, and if so, why? And if it was,
then can the Kelly Lake Mobile Home subdivision, where people
own their own land, be excluded also?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I'd be so happy to answer
that. Number one, you're not included in a rezoning. We're not
rezoning anything today, but what the Naples Land Yacht Harbor
is not included in, that the other park you're referring to is
included in, is in the redevelopment district. The net effect of
that is, and also in the M.S.T.U., if anything, sorry, Mom, I've done
a disservice to my family, to my parents by not having them
included in this, because the benefit here is that as your property
values increase, all of the increase, all of that increment has to
be spent only within the boundaries of the district. It can't be
spent outside of the district boundaries. That increase can only
be spent on your own property.
The only reason that the Naples Land Yacht Harbor is not
included in the district is because the CRA district started with
the M.S.T.U. boundaries. I know this is all a bunch of
gobbledygook. I wish I could say it plainer. The redevelopment
district started with the landscaping district boundaries.
The landscaping district boundaries only included properties
adjacent to Bayshore because we couldn't tax somebody over off
of Bayshore for beautification that's on Bayshore and the
adjoining streets. After that landscaping district was in place,
then we added the CRA, the redevelopment district, and just kept
the same boundaries.
Page 120
December 12, 2000
MS. JONES: So you're saying that this park is not in the
boundaries?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That park is not in the
boundaries, but that's --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It couldn't be for the reasons that you
stipulated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't it off of Royal Harbor?. I mean,
it's not even in the area.
MS. JONES: Okay. Thank you. Will taxes automatically be
raised after the rezoning, the overlay, the rezoning?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, that's a fair question, but
can I try to explain what you just said? This -- it took me a long
time, so I'm going to describe it in first grade words because
that's the only way I understand anything. So if you pay $1,000
in taxes this year and with the beautification process or
whatever else happens and say, for instance, we create an art
colony down Bayshore and it looks better, so your property value
goes up and now you pay $1,020 for your taxes the following
year. That thousand still goes to the county to be spent as it
always was, but the extra $20 that you've paid goes right back in
-- that's why the county commissioners have to vote on it. That
$20 goes back into just Bayshore, Bayshore CRA. It doesn't --
and that's what they're using for improvements. So that any
extra tax money because of property value improvements, all it
does is improve and increase and get better. It goes back just to
that particular area.
MS. JONES: Okay. That's good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that make you -- I can only do
it in first grade words.
MS. JONES: That's okay. I'll give this board the benefit of
the doubt and assume you're all good people with good
intentions, but I've heard today that this is a 30 year project and
it's just possible all of you may not be on this board for 30 years,
and the county does have the power to forcibly buy people's
homes, rezone and condemn and declare eminent domain.
The Kelly Lake owners would appreciate answers -- well, I'll
give them the answers that you've given me, but they also are
prepared to put every obstacle in the way of the county, if and
when the county proceeds with eminent domain. Thank you.
Page 121
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's Mary Taylor, followed by Jack
Van VeldHoven.
MS. TAYLOR: Hi. I'm Mary Taylor and I live at 2968 Lunar
Street. If I've been misinformed, I beg your apologies, but if I
haven't, I'm here to fight for my home because my husband has
worked hard. We have lived in Naples for about 40 years. I've
raised my kids and my grandkids and my great-grandkids, and if
anyone wants to buy my property, let them come to me and
negotiate a deal with me. Don't go behind my back and -- and
I've been informed now, like I said, if I'm misinformed, I beg your
apologies, but I've been informed that the county has sent out an
appraiser, appraised my home, what they think it is worth,
because they'll be working for the county, and probably give me
10 percent over. So that is not right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's misinformation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd be scared if I heard that --
MS. TAYLOR: Well, I beg your apologies if it's
misinformation, but if anyone wants to buy my property, let them
come to me and my husband and negotiate with us. That's all I
have to say.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's only fair.
MS. PRESTON: Just for the record, the CRA staff, no one in
the planning department has sent out any appraisers to do any
market analysis or anything of that nature.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next --
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Van VeldHoven would be Karen
Belcher.
MR. VAN VELDHOVEN: Good afternoon, commissioners. My
name is Jack Van VeldHoven and I'm representing three of my
family members. We own property, residential and commercial,
on Bayshore Drive and we support the plan, full in favor. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Karen Belcher, followed by David Woodworth.
MS. BELCHER: My name is Karen Belcher. My family has
owned property off of Bayshore for 50 years. I just inherited it,
and I feel the same way my aunt does, Mary Taylor, if anyone
wants to buy my property, they can come to me and not -- I do
not want it to be condemned. It's my right to send it on down to
Page 122
December 12, 2000
my kids or sell it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is David Woodworth, followed by
Bruce Thalheimer.
MR. WOODWORTH: Hello. My name is David Woodworth. I
have one -- one comment -- I have several comments, but one
about this municipal taxing district. I never voted for it, okay?
You voted for it. I didn't vote for it, okay?
The only thing I voted for in recent time was the dredging of
the canals on Halderman Creek and I don't know what the status
of that is, because the notice that was in the paper, I didn't read
it. I found out from a neighbor that there was a meeting last
Wednesday or a week ago Wednesday and I don't know where --
what's happening with that, but I was at a meeting the other
night, last night, and I guess I'll be here tomorrow. I asked how
many people want more commercialization last night at the park,
and nobody put their hand up. Nobody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right. I was sitting there
watching.
MR. WOODWORTH: Nobody. So really the people along
Bayshore, most of them don't want more commercialization. I
know there are -- the businesses are there, they should -- you
know, they should be allowed to remain there. I have nothing
against that, but your job as commissioners is to make an
incentive for people to redevelop and you want to -- by allowing,
maybe changing setbacks or density or whatever, and I think
really, personally, the -- the Bayshore area should eventually be
just a residential area. I really don't -- I think eventually you
should try to eliminate this mixed use. I really don't think it
lends itself to a mixed use area, and the other thing is, it's been
talked about before about condemning property. I don't think
you should condemn anybody's property unless you have a public
use for that property, like a library or a fire station or something
like that, you have to put a road in or something. That's the only
time you should condemn any personal property, residential or
commercial.
I think it's a -- it's a travesty on our constitution if you go
ahead and condemn even a commercial piece of property and
take it away from somebody. You want to offer incentives that
Page 123
December 12, 2000
that property will be redeveloped, and that's as far as I think you
should go.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you're down to your last three
speakers. Next is Bruce Thalheimer, followed by Robert Huff,
who will be followed by George Varnadoe.
MR. THALHEIMER: Good afternoon. My name's Bruce
Thalheimer. I've been a resident of Collier County for a little over
33 years. This is really more to Donna and to Pam. You know, I
don't speak legalese and, you know, that's what we pay our
attorney to speak, but Pam, Tony asked a question, do you all
have any plans to condemn the Thalheimer property or Bob
Taylor's property?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no plans to do that
because I absolutely trust that the capitalism system will work
and that the market will drive -- I hope that both properties are
sold, I hope that it's redeveloped, but I trust the system. I trust
the market to treat that fairly. I don't think that eminent domain
will ever be necessary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I've worked on the
redevelopment committee and we've never spoken of
condemnation. I know that they've talked about people trying to
get people to buy into that area and build something beautiful.
They don't even have a plan in place yet, but Bruce, I've never
heard of a condemnation, not on your property, not on Bob
Taylor's.
I'll tell you something I'd like to do on -- if they -- say for
instance, Bob Taylor wants to keep his property, I'd sure like to
make him make it look a little nicer. I mean, if we're going to
keep those properties, great, we're gonna keep your property,
but I'd like to see them look nice.
The only thing I don't like to see in that triangle are things
that are boarded up, abandoned, abused, because that's the
entryway to East Naples and it breaks my heart every time
people drive into East Naples and they see things that are
abandoned or boarded up. So if -- say for instance somebody
makes you an offer and you don't like the offer, great, you know,
that's fine, that's your prerogative. I'd like to see you fix that up
and make it something really neat so we can be proud of it in
Page124
December 12, 2000
East
Naples. It doesn't make any difference to me which way it goes,
as long as it looks better, in my opinion.
MR. THALHEIMER: Donna, I just have a question for you on
that then. I haven't received any communication from the county
commission concerning what's going on. I did receive, and I
know Bob received a very nice letter from Bella Villaggio, you
know, thanking us for, you know, the taking of our property,
putting it into the nutshell for the building of what they see for
the future of it, and I have never been addressed by anybody
from this group.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, first of all, this is only my
second meeting, so obviously, I wouldn't have had any part in
that, but I've never seen the letter, nor have -- until today, I'd
never heard of -- how about you, Pain?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have heard that that is the
name of the project that's being proposed in the RFP responding,
but something's wrong, Bruce, if -- if we've been talking about
this, and we have, for four years? How long? I mean, I had to
run for re-election to try to get it accomplished. I can't believe
that as prominent a piece of property as you have has never
known a thing about the whole redevelopment, Gateway
Triangle, nothing, you've never heard of it?
MR. THALHEIMER: I'm talking about what I've received from
you all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're talking about this
redevelopment project?
MR. THALHEIMER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's because apparently
one -- the bidder has jumped the gun. There's nothing to hear
yet, Bruce. We put out a bid that if somebody wants to put out --
bring to us in January and say, here is a proposal to redevelop
land, then we might say we like it, we might say we don't. If we
say we like it, we'll say, now, good luck negotiating with the
property owners. Somebody's jumped the gun if they've sent you
a letter saying, thank you for donating your property or whatever
it is to the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who sent you that letter?
MR. THALHEIMER: It was from the developer of the Bella
Villaggio.
Page 125
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that would be
inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'- It wasn't from the county.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That did not come from us, Bruce. I've
never seen the letter and all of those come in front of us, and I
would certainly query any developer who came forward and if he
or she had said, yeah, I sent this out, then they would not be in
good standing with me because they had not involved the people
who need to be involved, so I haven't seen anything, Bruce. I
really haven't.
MR. THALHEIMER: Okay. Well, listen, you all have
answered my questions to the best of your ability. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if that developer
is here, maybe he can answer that question, or a representative.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know he was earlier. Maybe
you'd register to speak too.
MR. PIOLI: I have not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, will you come up and do that so
we can put that issue aside, and next speaker, please?
MR. HUFF: Yes, my name's Robert Huff. I own property on
Bayside Street, which we have lost our street sign since they
rebuilt 41, and now I don't know what the name of my street is,
but they better not change it, but I have owned property there.
I've been coming to your meetings, Pam's been there, since it
was Davis Triangle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
MR. HUFF: That's where it started.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. HUFF: And Davis Triangle was from Davis to 41 and 41
back to Airport, and then back to Davis. Now it's including over
on Bayshore.
We had our taxes raised because, at the time, all they
wanted to do was raise money to plant petunias in the middle of
the road, which I was against, but my taxes was raised so that
you could plant them.
Two things, I'd like to know what it costs to keep them
plants up every year. You've got people out there blocking lanes,
which you built more roads to move traffic. Now they're blocking
Page 126
December 12, 2000
lanes to trim the petunias.
Also, you say you don't want a blighted area. What do you
call Bayside Motel? It has been boarded up for two years. We
can't get anything done on our street. So consequently, as a
property owner, I think you're trying to run our neighborhood
down so that you can buy it and sell it to a developer or
something. What else am I supposed to think?
I have had -- I've tried to get the sheriff down there to do
things. We've got everything going. We've got a labor camp at
the end of my street, four buildings, which they come down there
and feed them people every weekend. They come down and set
up a truck and sell them clothing. They come down and sell
tapes and everything else. This is running my neighborhood
down.
My wife goes to work at 4:30 in the morning. I walk her to
the truck with a gun stuck in my belt. I have come to the county
commission -- or manager one time because I could not get to
see Pam Mac'Kie. I've tried -- you can check your records. I've
called I don't know how many times. I could never get in to see
you. So I come to the county manager. I talked to him. He gets
code enforcement down there to kick out 20 people in one
apartment. They've still got the other buildings that are the
same way. So how am I, as far as a property owner, supposed to
look at you, that you're not trying to run our neighborhood down
to develop it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What street do you live on, sir?
MR. HUFF: I'm in --
MR. OLLIFF: Bayside.
MR. HUFF: What am I supposed to look at? If my house --
you said just a minute ago down here at Everglades, if my house
burnt down, I have been grandfathered in all the way around,
which I understand in five years, this county commission is
gonna eliminate all grandfathers. What's that gonna do to me?
They had to deed me six inches of property on the south
side of my house -- or the west side and ten feet on the other
side for me to get to my house. My eaves is on my property line.
The water running off my roof is running on the neighbor. I put
up eaves on one side of my house and I'm four inches over
because I put up the house -- or the eaves.
They could condemn my house right now because I don't
Page 127
December 12, 2000
have the setback. I couldn't sell my house because I don't have
the setback. The neighbor cannot sell their apartments because
they don't have the setback. There's ten feet between my
garage and their apartment. So I mean, how am I supposed to
look at it? I hear things going on, and to me, they're trying to run
my neighborhood down so they can buy the land cheap.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, I'll tell you, you
asked me a question, what are you supposed to think? What
we're hoping to do is build your neighborhood up.
MR. HUFF: Well, that's what I've heard, but I can't get
anything done. They've never come down my street and put in
petunias.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is Bayside? I'm sorry, I don't
even know.
MR. HUFF: Bayside is right behind Long John Silver's.
MS. PRESTON: He's in the Gateway Triangle area, not on
the Bayshore M.S.T.U. area, so we don't have a taxing district for
the Gateway Triangle for any landscape improvements at this
time.
MR. HUFF: Excuse me, you raised my taxes, you raised my
property up so you could plant petunias on the road, and don't
tell me you didn't because I know my taxes went up.
MS. PRESTON: Well, your tax --
MR. HUFF: And my neighborhood's gone down, so --
MS. PRESTON: The value of your property might have gone
up, but it wasn't because of the Bayshore M.S.T.U., sir.
MR. HUFF: Well, this is what I see going on and I see you're
trying to get my property and that's the way I look at it.
MS. PRESTON: Well, we're -- as Commissioner Fiala pointed
out, the redevelopment program is trying to upgrade the
residential neighborhoods and we will, hopefully starting next
year, start looking more closely at that residential neighbor in
the Gateway Triangle area.
MR. HUFF: But they're not doing it. They're boarding up a
motel. That's a blight on my neighborhood. We've got
abandoned cars sitting all over the place. They back them in so
code enforcement don't see they don't have plates. Well, unless
they're called down there, they can't do nothing.
I had one come over on my property Sunday, called me all
kinds of names. I called the Sheriff's Department. The deputy
Page128
December 12, 2000
comes out and I said, I want him arrested, he was trespassing.
The deputy says, we have to see him on your property. What's
this doing to my neighborhood?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can understand and I think your
points certainly have not been lost on this board and I appreciate
it, but your time has expired and I must move to the next
speaker. Thank you.
MR. HUFF: Well, I don't think I had my full five minutes, but
go ahead.
MR. OLLIFF'. Next speaker's George Varnadoe, and then the
representative of the development company, Daniel Pioli, is here
and available to answer questions if you have them.
MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe
representing the current owner of the -- what's been referred to
as the Chlumpsky Shopping Center at the corner of U.S. 41 and
Sandpiper. You've heard a lot of concerns today from
particularly residential owners and from those who own property
in the triangle. I think it's all focused on one thing, and that is
the power of condemnation and the use thereof, but -- and I
understand those concerns, but that's not what we're here for
today.
Nothing in the growth management plan talks about
condemnation or allows any condemnation. That's under the
CRA that's already in place. What we're here today on is for a
growth management plan amendment that would provide
incentives that would allow redevelopment, particularly in the
commercial areas.
The proposal certainly has worked in my client's case. He
acquired the property with knowledge that this growth
management plan amendment was in place. He's filed a PUD
with the county that would take advantage of the growth
management plan amendments, and as Don Chesser said, he's
happy to see that because he knows what that's going to do to
the values in the area across the street, that is, in the triangle
area and the other areas along this Gateway area.
The proposal is for mixed use development and what you've
at least now called a TND, traditional neighborhood
development, where you have that mixed use, where it's a close
neighborhood, where you have a lot of pedestrian activity, where
you have some retail on the ground floor of some certain
Page 129
December 12, 2000
buildings, with residential above it. Where you have some
residential only buildings where they're close to the street, but
then behind them, you may have these big park like areas, green
space. I'm not going to bore you with a site plan. You'll see that
soon enough.
The -- we will tell you that we met with the residents of the
area, including representatives of Royal Harbor and Oyster Bay
and the other developments in there, and they're unanimous in
their support for this and I know that Pam has heard that at a
residents' council.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have.
MR. VARNADOE.' This project would not be possible without
this growth management plan amendment before you today. I'd
urge you to approve this. It will allow the redevelopment of this
area to commence and enable this particular project to go
forward, and I think as Don Chesser said better than I could,
because as a property owner, he understands it, this will provide
the spark to get this area going with redevelopment which it
sorely needs, and as Donna Fiala and I have talked about, I think
it's going to be a great gateway project, when you're leaving
Naples going to East Naples and a great gateway project when
you're going from East Naples to Naples proper, and we think it
would be a great project and I'd urge you to approve this plan
amendment today and focus on what's before you and not these
other concerns which really aren't before you today. They may
be tomorrow night, they may be sometime in the future, in
January when you decide whether or not to use the power of
eminent domain, but that's certainly not the issue that's before
you today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. We have Mr. Pioli to
answer any questions by the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. Mr. Pioli, as a
voting member on this board, what was the purpose of this letter
that you sent out to the owners?
MR. PIOLI: Commissioners, I'd like to say thank you first for
the opportunity to be here today. I didn't anticipate speaking, so
I'm not really prepared to enter into any particular format, so I'll
just field your questions as they come.
I do agree with Mr. Varnadoe that I do think what's before
you today obviously is very important, not only as it related to
Page 130
December 12, 2000
the project planned for the Chlumpsky property, but also for the
mini triangle..
As to your question, Commissioner Henning, I have had a
policy of having open communication with everyone who will
have some involvement in the mini triangle project, right from
the very first time I undertook this process, and it goes back to a
little over a year when Commissioner Mac'Kie asked me if I'd be
willing to sit in on some of these town hall meetings that were
taking place to try and derive from that some comments that I
might be able to offer on behalf of the development community
with respect to the catalyst projects or other redevelopment
activities that might occur.
With that, and having this open communication policy, I
have regularly met with homeowners throughout the
neighborhood. I have more of those meetings planned. I'm
contemplating in the near future a meeting with each of the
property owners, whether individually or as a group collectively,
to discuss what's planned for the site and how we might
collectively go forward in an effort to achieve this redevelopment
in the future.
I have met, as each of you know, with each of the
candidates who were running for positions on the board this year
prior to being elected, as well as each of the sitting
commissioners from the prior commission prior to the publication
of the RFP. So this policy of communicating on an ongoing
process is what's behind -- because I don't want, obviously, to be
in a situation where I come before you and you didn't fully
understand the scope of what I was proposing. I don't want the
property owners or the neighboring residents to be surprised by
what was being planned.
I want this to all be out in the open and well known, well
discussed, have all the community input and involvement that it
could possibly have, and that's what's behind the letter.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Can I just say, I know Dan from
having served with him on the homeless shelter board and I
know him to be an honest person who's trying to do the right
thing. It's my bet, from reading this, which I just got, is that in
your enthusiasm, Dan, for what you hope to be the future of the
mini triangle, you've described it as a done deal and it's not.
MR. PIOLI: No, it's not, and nor have I ever had that intent,
Page 131
December 12, 2000
and at all times it's been made very clear, particularly to each of
the property owners, and again, having met with many of them
personally, that there is a multi-step process that has to be
undertaken here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just for future reference,
Dan, if you're gonna send out letters, instead of saying, this
mixed use project will bring and it will inspire, it would, it will if --
MR. PIOLI: Certainly. I agree. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's basically what's wrong
here, if you ask me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you ever meet with Bruce
Thalheimer?
MR. PIOLI: Yes, actually, I stuck my head in the door down
on -- when he had his shop down on Third Street and said hello
personally. We have talked over the telephone two, possibly
three times, and of course, he's been a recipient of the -- of the
intermittent newsletters that I've sent out as well. So yes, there
has been communication.
I have attempted to speak with Mr. Taylor as well and did
have one conversation with him very early on in the process, and
Mr. Taylor made it clear that he didn't feel there was any reason
for us to be discussing it until there was something more
substantive to the situation. At the time, the commission had
not passed or approved the CRA. So at that time, it was a bit
premature for us to be having discussions, and I've always taken
my conversation with Mr. Taylor in the context of meaning that
when we were ready to talk a deal, that he would be ready at
that time to sit down and discuss the merits of it and whether or
not he was interested in that transaction.
I have also spoken with and/or met personally, and I'll
reiterate this again, with each of the property owners, and that
includes Goodyear, U-haul. I've sent out a number of written
communications, all of which I have records of and have tried
very, very hard to be forthright and out in the open about this so
that everybody understood exactly where I was coming from.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think you've answered my question.
It may be a choice of words here in your enthusiasm, but I do
understand the process and that nothing's a done deal. You have
met with me and what you would propose if, if, if, and that
certainly is -- certainly, to me, is interesting, and when this all
Page 132
December 12, 2000
moves forward, you'll have an opportunity to negotiate with the
property owners and if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
MR. PIOLI: Absolutely, and that's fully understood, and I
think really the property owners understand that through my
communication with them as well.
I can tell you that I will be having that meeting, I hope, prior
to us having our formal presentation on the proposal in January.
I hope to have a meeting with those property owners prior to
that. So hopefully I'll be coming before you to have that
interview, having some consent in hand, I hope, with the property
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I would encourage you to meet
with all of them. The more information you have to bring to us,
the more informed we will -- the better informed we will be to
make that decision.
MR. PIOLI: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So coming back to -- unless we have
other questions for Mr. Pioli, we need to take this agenda item as
it pertains to its specific issue and deal with that, and also thank
all the people who have been here to make their inputs on the
overall project itself in total, and their concerns certainly have
not fallen on deaf ears as far as this commission is concerned.
So could I entertain a motion or a discussion in terms of this
item?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, close -- I have to close the public
hearing. Move--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion -- motion to amend the
existing future land element and map of Collier County growth
management plan to create an overlay known as the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment overlay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion by the board?
MR. HENNING: Yes. I just hope future correspondence is --
from the citizens or developers in this area, maybe get some
input from staff or the commissioners before it's -- it's put out
there to the residents and -- so we don't scare people with taking
of property, so on and so forth.
Page 133
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would agree, Commissioner Henning,
the more public meeting you can have before it comes to the
dais where we can work through these issues and put -- and deal
with people's concerns saves everybody a lot of time and a lot of
heartache in that area.
Other comments from commissioners?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to recuse myself just
because I've been asked by a few people in the audience not to
vote. I did check with the County Attorney's Office and I was
allowed to do that, but if--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not sure you can recuse
yourself, Donna. We need to get some advice.
MR. WEIGEL: All right. Well, it's not an option to vote or not
vote for the elected official, but the -- there are two statutes
under which you operate. One is chapter 112, the conflict
statute, where if you have a conflict, that you must conflict out.
If you do not have a conflict but there may be a perception
of a conflict, under 286.012, you may, in fact, conflict out. So it
would not be upon request. It would be upon your determination
that you either have a conflict or that you believe that there is a
perception of conflict and exercise your statutory election not to
vote.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, if that determination
is made on this particular petition, will it be controlling for-- I
mean, there are a lot of votes yet to come on the
Bayshore/Gateway redevelopment.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's a very good question. Obviously
one would tend to think that there is a consistency, although
there is the opportunity for the elected official to rethink their
position, particularly if they're going under the perception --
perception statute.
If there is an outright conflict and the person -- elected
official abstains, as long as that conflict exists, obviously the
recommendation would be that the commissioner abstain from
future votes on the same subject matter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I'm going to -- can I say
first why -- how I feel? Apparently two people felt there was a
perceived conflict. Upon checking with the County Attorney's
Page 134
December 12, 2000
Office, I own one piece of property in the -- in the area that is
being discussed right now, one amongst a thousand. I don't
stand to benefit any more than the next guy. Possibly the same
as. No more than.
Yes, I've been very involved in the community, always for
the betterment of it, love people to come out and help me pick up
garbage next time we do it, but I don't feel I have a conflict in
any way, so I will vote yes for it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
aye.
All in favor, signify by saying
Opposed, same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries five-oh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to say, Donna, if you
conflicted out every issue that you've worked hard on as a
community activist, you're not going to be very busy up here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could never vote.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This commission will be in recess until
3:15. (Recess was taken.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 2000-88, RE PETITION PUD-99-28, KAREN BISHOP
OF PMS, INC., OF NAPLES REPRESENTING VANDERBILT
PARTNERS II, LTD., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RSF-3(3),
A(ST), RMF-6ST(3), RMF-6(3), RFM-12ST(3), RSF-3, RSF-3ST, RSF-
4(3), AND RSF-4, TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE
KNOWN AS COCOHATCHEE BAY PUD FOR A MAXIMUM OF 590
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
INCLUDING A GOLF COURSE AND CLUBHOUSE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WIGGINS PASS
ROAD AND VANDERBILT DRIVE, CONSISTING OF 532+/- ACRES -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll recall the meeting.
We're now at 12B-1. The Cocohatchee PUD for a maximum
of 590 residential dwelling units, recreational facilities, etc. This
is PUD 99-28. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: We need to take them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everybody needs to be sworn that's
Page 135
December 12, 2000
going to participate in this.
(The speakers were sworn.)
MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Um, before you do that, Mr. Nino. I do
have to get disclosures from the board.
I will start with my right, Mr. Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I did talk to the developer
about this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I did talk to the developer and
Karen Bishop.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have spoken with the developer. I
have met with neighborhood groups, including an original
meeting at St. John's public meeting back in September where
we took a look at everything going on in the community. I have
had e-mails and letters and phone conversations with members
of the community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I would just like to say
months, if not a year ago, I talked to the developer's
representative, and met with -- I think this is the one that I meet
with Barbara to talk about the flow-way issue and the restoration
of some flow-ways. And I don't think I've ever talked to anybody
about this project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't spoken to anybody on
this issue since I've been commissioner elect.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: For the record, my name's Ron Nino with
development services. The parcel of land before you today is a
very large piece of land, 532 acres, with a very irregular
boundary, to say the least. It's iljustrated on this map on the
wall here. You'll note that starting from the south, it immediately
abuts the Dunes PUD, which is board approved about a month
ago. And it abuts a large portion of the Dunes, which is actually
a preserve area, and will continue that preserve area up and
around this island of development that is like a hole in the donut
here, which includes the Cocohatchee Park, the Pelican Isle
high-rise condominiums and boat club, Marina Bay high-rise
structure and boating facilities and the relatively low-rise
condominium called the Anchorage, and Wiggins Pass Marina is
the most northerly land use that abuts this property. This then
continues further north to the south boundary of Arbor Trace.
Page 136
December 12, 2000
Arbor Trace is a low-rise community adjacent to Vanderbilt Drive.
However, in the very western end of it, it is now being capped
off with a 15-story high-rise structure. And we continue on into a
vacant parcel of land that continues all the way out to Tamiami
Trail, 41. This parcel of land is about three hundred feet wide
here. It abuts, it circumscribes the Tarpon Cove development,
which isn't too hard to measure, is a two-story condominium type
product. And to the north is the Falling Waters Beach Resort,
again, which is a two-story condominium product.
It's important to appreciate the -- that the land that we're
dealings with is by and large totally zoned for residential use. It
has multi-family zoning districts. It has a single-family zoning
district. It does have a small amount of agricultural zoning.
The petition that's before you purports to request 590
residential dwelling units of a multi-family nature, and largely in
high-rise structures. If it were not -- if it were not for that fact --
if it were not for that fact that this PUD was really seeking
high-rise towers, this petition wouldn't be necessary to develop
the land. And given -- given the allowable density by virtue of
those underlying zoning districts currently, one could build far
more than 590 dwelling units on this property. If you apply the
mathematics; i.e., three times the growth acreage, you could --
you would come up with something like 1,700 acres. But given
1,700 dwellings units (sic), but quite frankly given the
environmental sensitivities of the land, you could not achieve
that in a two-story structure. However, I can assure you that
they could achieve substantially more than the 590 dwelling
units they are requesting. But when we look at those numbers,
that -- and traffic impacts, we must appreciate, based on what
additional impact will result from the rezoning of the land, given
the fact that the underlying zoning allows for more units than
they're requesting. Under our growth management traffic
circulation element there is no traffic impact.
I think it's important that we appreciate that. Under the
growth management plan there is no traffic impact, therefore,
this petition is consistent with the traffic circulation element of
the growth management plan. It is consistent with the future
land use element, because the future land use element says that
residential is a desired use and the future land element does not
have any limitations on whether -- as to height. The future land
Page 137
December 12, 2000
use plan is neutral as to the height of residential structures.
This property in its proposed development pattern will
commit 90 percent of the area to either open space -- a
combination of open space and preserves. And that is
substantially more than the 60 percent that is required under --
under the conservation coastal management element of the
growth management plan. It has all infrastructure available to it,
and, therefore, it is consistent with the infrastructure elements
that deal with sewer and water and storm drainage.
I can assure you that this petition that's presented to you is
consistent with all of the required elements of the growth
management plan. Therefore, what do we have left? Well, we
have issues of compatibility, by and large we have issues of
compatibility and timing. And I've already addressed the timing
factor. Obviously, this land is ripe for development. It's in the
heart of the urbanizing portion of Collier County. It's urbanized
entirely around it, so the issue of timing is really not an issue. So
it becomes the issue of compatibility.
This PUD proposes to build residential structures in two
locations on the master plan. That plan really does it much
better, but essentially the PUD would purport to build high rises
in there and low rises over there. Low-rise, we have low-rise,
essentially the same housing product, and out of sight. I don't
think anybody could argue that. Therefore, that is not
compatible. Over here we have a 15-story high-rise. We have
10-story high rise. The first building is to be limited to 15 stories.
The next four buildings jump up to 20 stories.
When we deal with the issue of compatibility, some of you
know that I've said many times before, there is nothing
inherently bad or good in height. That is a purely subjective
issue. There's nothing in planning literature and urban design
theory that says heights of buildings are bad. And most planners
would be therefore very neutral to that issue. A comparison form
of development would, in the opinion of your staff, would
obviously -- which is possible; i.e., a single-family, multi-family
development, would take the form of-- I suggest to you Glen
Eden on the Bay. If you've driven up Vanderbilt Drive you'll note
about 100 acres of absolutely cleared land, which is going to be
filled with one and two-story single-family rooftops. That form of
development repeated over the buildable sections of this
Page138
December t2, 2000
property would literally destroy a substantial amount of green
space that this proposal offers. This proposal offers 15 units, a
golf -- a golf course of 15, 15 fair -- 15 fairways on the east side,
and three fairways on the west side. The high-rise structures
will actually be six, seven, 900 feet back from Vanderbilt Drive.
So in terms of environmental sensitivity, I think we have to
come down solidly on this plan being far more environmentally
friendly than any alternative development and single-family or
low-rise multiple family housing.
The arguments you might hear here today, again, include
the same question that you dealt with at the Dunes PUD. A large
portion of the acreage is submerged lands. And the question of
ownership will come forward I'm sure today. And we responded
to that question at the Dunes. ! would imagine the same legal
opinions could be carried forward to this petition indeed. They
own the fee to the land and, therefore, it's part of the gross
acreage and Collier County bases its density on gross acreage
irrespective of whether the land is submerged or not. However,
in the context of this petition, that question is entirely academic
because the amount of dwelling units that they're requesting,
exclusive of the submerged lands, I suggest to you will produce
far more than 590 units.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was there an environmental
advisory council?
MR. NINO: Yes, there was. An environmental advisory
council unanimously endorsed this project, as did the planning
commission. However, as you know, there are a number of
objections and petitions that were included in your agenda
package. I received two or three more since your executive
package was submitted to you. They are all in the same vein.
They object to the project.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Nino, what is the density of some
of the other surrounding projects, like Arbor Trace on their land
use?
MR. NINO: It would be three units to the acre, because
that's the -- that's the base density in that area, and they
would've developed under that regulation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if I'm reading this one, it's about
t.10 units per acre?
MR. NINO: Correct.
Page t39
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So they're substantially below what
the neighbors are?
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Am I missing something or is this
-- it looks to me like the issue here, frankly, I can't find an issue
here, that the assessment of this project would be that there's
not a question of whether or not this density and more could be
built on the subject property. There's a question of whether they
spread it out wide and have an impact on a lot of environmentally
sensitive land, or they go high and less impact on the
environment.
MR. NINO: That is very correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right.
it.
MR. NINO:
I thought I was getting
To continue, this petition is structured with the
same development standards that are in Pelican Bay relative to
the spacing ability. The development standards are exactly the
same, one-half to some of the heights of the buildings. A
substantial setback from Vanderbilt Drive. The petitioner in the
package that you have provides widening for Vanderbilt Drive,
with a requirement for impact fee credit.
I'm pleased to advise you that as a result of further
negotiation by it, your staff and Mr. Feder, in particular, the -- you
will not have to give credits for the widening of Vanderbilt Drive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. They're going to give us
the road right-of-way and we give them nothing?
MR. NINO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I like them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Same on Wiggins Pass.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good job, Norm.
MR. NINO: There's also in this plan on your traffic ways
master plan, there is the continuation of the east/west league of
Livingston Road through Vanderbilt Drive, a reservation will be
made there. However, the County will not take that reservation
until it needs it, and I'm advised by Mr. Feder that that is a long
time in the distance, and at that time in a manner of
remuneration will be determined at that time.
And if Mr. Feder has any further comments, I would invite
them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to understand that last
Page 140
December 12, 2000
one a little better. We're going to take it when we need it, and if
we need it we'll pay them what it's worth at the time?
MR. FEDER.' Yes. The folks have been extremely
cooperative and I want to commend them. Basically on that
section, it might be a possible extension in the future east/west
Livingston Road west of US 41. They're going to reserve the land
for future road right-of-way at the time that we find that we are,
in fact, looking to build that facility, which is not currently on our
plans. We would then pay, and I believe I'm correct in the
statement I just read, based on the pre-PUD cost for that land,
but that we're not being asked to pay for the impact fee credits
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to know how you guys
made these deals. This is -- you guys may not know just how
different, I mean, don't mean to --
MR. FEDER: As I said I want to commend the folks that are
developing this parcel. And it's a way we need to be responding
in the future. And we'll be coming back to this board with the
need to proceed in this direction in the future.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know we always talk about
not setting -- Norm, come back, because before you leave --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so glad you're up there. I just
had a couple questions. Seems the 243 petitions -- petition
names that we've received, plus a couple letters here, were
objecting mostly to the traffic, feeling that the roads could not
accommodate the new traffic generated, of course here it says
there will be no new traffic generated. Somehow I'm thinking
with 590 units sold --
MR. FEDER: We have a process -- yeah, we have a process
under the comprehensive planning, another issue you'll probably
be raising, that says that the allowable density, it's being
proposed above and beyond, that is what's looked at relative to
transportation impact essentially, assuming that the property
could have developed at a certain level, and if they asked for
more, that's identified in the transportation impact, if that
answers your question.
Having said that, I think it was also noted that, first of all,
these folks will come in, as I said, and are being very responsive
relative to the transportation issues. And I will note that they're
looking at a density that's far less than what you see in the area.
Page 141
December 12, 2000
The last thing I'll point out to you is we are planning,
transportation staff, on developing a corridor study in this area.
There's been a lot of questions about Vanderbilt and Wiggins and
so we're going to start up in a while in a corridor study of the
area, try to define what we do for transportation issues in that
area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in your opinion the roads that
are in place, or will be in place when this development is
completed, are adequate to handle -- for a level of service C to
handle the new --
MR. FEDER: I did not say that. I'm not sure you even have
that out there today even I'm for it this project, but what I am
telling you is the level of impact from this developable land is
definitely something that we can work with in this area. And it's
something that when we do our study, we'll try to define how we
address what already today are some constraints on your
statement of level of service C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So can I just ask one more? So you
feel comfortable with our roads and this development?
MR. FEDER: I feel comfortable that we will work with the
community to define what can be done in that area, that it is not
a foregone conclusion that the community wants four-laning or
expansion of the roads in that area. So that's something we
need to look at, find out what our alternatives are and make a
decision on how we approach improvements in that section of
the county.
CHAIRMAN CARTER= Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I probably shouldn't ask this
question, but I'm going to anyways. Just trying to project
forward from where we are now, what's the earliest we could
expect Vanderbilt to be four-laned?
MR. FEDER: Right now we're looking probably about two to
three months before you start a corridor study of about 12
months. At that time -- we had had plans already for possible
four-laning on Vanderbilt, all the concerns raised, we have a
number of very significant environmental issues there,
mangroves around the bridges and the like.
So in answer to your question, we don't currently have a
program. We're going to be coming to you with a five-year work
program about March, April. And we will go through with the
Page 142
December 12, 2000
corridor study. That'll help us define the issues and bring that
forward to you probably about a year from now and decide how
we approach that area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the other question would
be, when was it they were actually planning to build this project,
if they got the okay to go ahead with it? Would it be something
that takes place in a couple months, or would it be a couple
years down the road?
MR. FEDER: And that's something I'll defer to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we need to defer that to the
petitioner. And I will tell you, my understanding is you're talking
about five, six years in the future. But I will let them address
that and not put words in their mouth.
But, secondly, after all of the meetings that we have had
since they have accelerated that corridor study, with all of the
public input, it is a cooperation of a number of association
groups along with, you know, all requested parties in that North
Naples area that's making this happen.
So we have a tremendous amount of community cooperation
in trying to work through these issues, knowing full well this will
be developed. The question is, what do you want to have
happen, and why I have been so tenacious on this project, and
working through this, is this is the first time in my history as a
commissioner I've seen anyone setting aside 90 percent of the
land as open space, meaning it'll have a different configuration,
but there's also some substantial amount going to be set aside in
perpetuity as protected areas and that just doesn't happen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I commend Signature
Communities for what they're doing on this particular project. I
think it's wonderful. Maybe we're setting the direction for future
land use and what we should expect.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And this is an infill area. This is urban
infill, which we're not under any orders by DCA. They're looking
to the rural fringe in the rural area. We're taking it upon
ourselves in the urban infill to come up with better plans, higher
set asides of green space without having any taxes to work with.
There's a big movement that says we want a green tax. I'm for
it, but by the time we get the first dollar, all of this could be
zoned and be underway for development. We have to deal with
the realities of what we have today, and that's only through the
Page143
December 12, 2000
community cooperation of the developers to get the most that
we possibly can without having any public dollars available.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you're saying, excuse
me, so what you're saying is, the developer is going to provide
this green space at no cost to the public?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the roads at no cost.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The roads -- and they're also saying
that they'll set aside in perpetuity -- is that they would be happy
for a conservation group to take it over and maintain it. In the
interim, they will be accountable for maintaining it, or their
homeowner's association, until such time some group steps
forward and says, yes, we want to maintain it. They're saying,
we'll do it, and that's expensive, but they're willing to do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter, this looks
to me like another one of those hard fought battles that got
fought before you got in front of us and it looks like you've
already won the war.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we've done a lot of work, but I
think we need to certainly hear from the petitioner because
they've got some other things to share, the right questions were
raised by some of the commissioners, which I think is another
step in the right direction, plus we need to hear from the
neighborhood groups to share any concerns that they have.
So if you have no further questions for staff, we will go to
the petitioner?
MS. BISHOP: Merry Christmas, everyone. I'm Karen Bishop,
agent for the petitioner. I'm not going to really add to what the
staff has said, because it was -- pretty much laid it all out there.
The one thing we do have that wasn't mentioned is the eagle,
and it is in your packet and I want you to know that obviously
we're not going to do anything until Mr. Eagle decides to find a
new place to live.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The urban eagle?
MS. BISHOP: The urban eagle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got one in the Moorings.
We do, I mean there's an eagle nest that's nested there forever.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll tell you, the one over in our area
may qualify for the ship (sic) program, I don't know, but he's in
trouble with his nest at this point.
MS. BISHOP: Yeah, this eagle does sit on a dead tree. So it
Page 144
December 12, 2000
is only a matter of time before he moves and, you know, we're
patient enough to let him decide on his own when he's ready to
go unless, of course, a good wind comes and takes that tree
down ahead of time, but we're available for questions if you have
any questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think there's one issue that was
raised by Commissioner Coletta to Don Corace that we need to
address, and that's the little strip coming off of US 41, because
there was some issues by Tarpon Cove on it.
MR. CORACE: Don Corace with Signature Communities.
Good afternoon. Thank you for those comments, and we do
appreciate the efforts that, particularly, Commissioner Carter
has made in this whole process. Staff has also been very
forthright, and we've worked with Norm, and we're glad to have
him -- that he's -- we're glad to have -- that he's a part of staff.
First off all, Mr. Coletta had mentioned the timetable.
Timetable for, excuse my voice, I have a cold. The timetable for
the development of a high-rise component of our project is
probably -- we probably won't be building that component,
probably within the next four years, four to five years, and that's
based upon the development that we're currently doing at the
Dunes. So we don't anticipate coming out of the ground with
those towers probably for the next four years. With regard to the
-- what's shown on this map that's cut off, there's been a number
of people who you'll find who'll speak in the public hearing
process who have made an issue of this sliver of property, which
we refer to as a finger. This portion, this roadway is Livingston
Road, the future Livingston Road right-of-way, and as part of that,
which is on this side of -- we're actually dedicating 100 feet for
Livingston Road. There is portions of the property, which are --
we could possibly develop for multifamily. There have been
concerns by the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Portions of the finger, Don, is
that what you're talking about?
MR. CORACE: The finger. If you look over on the other map,
you can see it a little bit clearer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see, thank you.
MR. CORACE: There's a map that's more definitive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the visualizer, Katie, if you
would. Thank you. Oh, I see now.
Page 145
December 12, 2000
MR. CORACE: This is the finger. The area that is set aside
for Livingston Road, can you identify that, Ron, on that portion?
Right there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. CORACE: We had originally proposed our maintenance
facility for the golf course community to be on this location.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. CORACE: Right there. And because of some of the
neighbors' concerns, both to the north and to the south, to the
north we have Falling Waters, to the south Tarpon Cove, we've
decided to reorient our plan and put that maintenance facility
over toward the golf course component of our project.
So I believe we have allayed many of the fears of the people
in the community.
There will be people standing up who will be asking some
other questions regarding that. We'll be glad to address it at that
time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Also on your multifamily, if I
understood correctly, that some of that will be housing for
caddies, for other personnel that may be working for your
company?
MR. CORACE: That's possible, yes. That's one
consideration that we have at this point. We feel that it would be
an incentive to have quality housing on that portion of the
property for roughly -- we're going to have 60 employees for the
clubhouse on the golf course.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, Don, that sounds a little bit
like affordable housing in North Naples, work force housing.
MR. CORACE: Well, it would have to comply with the
multifamily standards that -- and be compatible with both Falling
Waters and Tarpon Cove. I think the minimum unit size is 1,200
square feet. So it's not something like it's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not trashy, since it's for working
people, right. And it's a real positive, as far as I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am too. I'm very impressed
with it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Any further questions of the
petitioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And these are the multifamilies that
we're talking about right here? How many multifamilies are
Page 146
December 12, 2000
there, four?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many multifamilies
altogether?
MR. CORACE: How many we propose?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. CORACE: We don't know. We don't know because we
had to make the dedication of 100 feet for Livingston Road. We
also have a great deal of wetlands in that area. As you can see
on the map, Tarport Cove was not able to develop all the way up
to the northern property line, because of these wetland issues.
Those little hatch marks you have seen on the map, those are
wetlands and those cover the -- the right-of-way that we would
be dedicating for Livingston Road.
So we wouldn't be able to develop in those areas. So we're
not sure how many units we should put in there, but whatever it
is, it will be compatible with what's both to the north and to the
south. One other thing I'd like to interject, when we were
negotiating relative to Vanderbilt Drive and Wiggins Pass Road,
we negotiated to the extent that we as a developer, if we
purchased the property, we currently have it under option, if we
purchase, go forward and purchase the property, which we have
every plan to do, we can then make those dedications. But at
this point, we're not the owner of the property, and we've
discussed this with Norm, and he agrees that we can only make
commitments that we have control over at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, obviously, you know, but
whoever ends up owning the property will have that requirement
to make the commitment, whether it's you or somebody else,
because if we approve this then the requirement will run with the
land.
MR. CORACE: It would run with the PUD.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Run with the PUD.
MR. CORACE: And they can choose -- they can choose to
utilize the PUD or start all over again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. CORACE: As you know, we can't speak for them. We
can't grant anything we don't own.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there some way in this
process that we might be assured that this work force housing
and this housing down here ends up being what we're talking
Page 147
December t 2, 2000
about now, and not some, like, motel type of situation or
something other than what your original design was?
MR. CORACE: Well, first of all, it can't be a motel, because
the zoning dictates that it has to be multifamily. I don't know
what assurances we could give you on what the product type is.
The only assurance we could give to you at this point is it will be
compatible with what is out there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the thing that I'm
impressed with is that most developers out there, and I hope that
they start taking notice of this, don't seem to have any real
serious concern about where the workers are going to come from
to be able to support this, and this is one of the first examples
I've seen out there. I'm just trying to assure myself that this in
perpetuity is going to be what we're talking about now.
MR. CORACE: Well, it's certainly our plans at this point, and
we have every reason to believe that the consideration we're
making for this right now, is something we'll follow through with
on our plan.
It is also, you need to understand, Commissioner Coletta,
that we have a number of environmental issues here. So we may
not be able to build much multifamily out there in the first place.
So we're going to be restricted not by zoning, but by
environmental permitting. So that's one of the reasons why we
can't answer what we can and cannot do out there, because we
don't have our environmental permits in hand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Public speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. The first speaker is -- you have six in
total. The first speaker is Christopher Thornton. Following Mr.
Thornton will be Warren Radler.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the second speaker would
come on down and sort of be on deck. It keeps things moving.
MR. THORNTON: Good afternoon. I'm Chris Thornton. I'm
with the law firm Treiser, Kobza & Lieberfarb. I'm representing
today the Estuary Conservation Association, formerly known as
the Wiggins Pass Conservancy. It's a group of people from the
North Naples area who are concerned about maintaining the
quality of the estuary system in the waterways in and around
Wiggins Pass, all the way down to the Vanderbilt Beach area, up
to Bonita, the Bonita area.
Page 148
December 12, 2000
Basically the Estuary Conservation Association is opposed
to the project to the extent that it will degrade the estuary
system. Right now the land is in its natural state and, of course,
any development, I guess, will degrade that estuary system. But,
in particular, the comparison that we've been making so far is
the benefit that the county gains from allowing 590 units to be
built rather than 1,758, and that 1,758 number is derived by
calculating the density times the gross acreage. We're not
looking at the -- at the possibility of 1,758 units, because as you
can see from the map on the wall, a lot of this property is open
waters. Open waters that are owned by the State of Florida. The
land that is owned by the state would be any of the open
waterways of the Wiggins Pass system, the Cocohatchee River
and any of the channels and canals in there, as well as the
mangrove wetlands below the mean high water, and after the
planning commission meeting on this matter, I did decide to go
ahead and ask the State of Florida for a title determination on
this particular PUD and their response was, yes, the state claims
to own all of this water and all of the wetlands below the mean
high water line. And I provided a copy of that determination to
the developer, as well as to Commissioner Carter, who was kind
enough to meet with me this morning for just a couple of minutes
to discuss that particular issue. The point is it sounds great to
say 590 is a lot better than 1,758, but the 1,758 number is way
out there. And we don't know exactly what that number is,
because we don't know exactly how much land the applicant
owns that's not owned by the state.
It also goes directly to all the traffic calculations, you know
-- okay, yeah, there's going to be no traffic impact. That's based
on the assumption that currently you could get 1,758 units out
there. But that's not the case. They're only comparing 1,758
with 590. And we don't know exactly how many acres they have,
because a lot of this land is owned by the state.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- I'm sorry, are you a
lawyer?
MR. THORNTON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a real estate lawyer it bothers
me that you would come in and say that you have a letter from
the DEP that says that the state owns this land, because their
letter says, since the accuracy and completeness of this
Page 149
December 12, 2000
information may vary and rely on records we currently have in
our repository -- here's the important part -- the conclusions set
forth herein do not constitute a legal opinion of title and should
not be relied on as such. Of course they're going to assert, you
know --
MR. THORNTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but please don't tell the board
that you have a letter from the DEP that says the state owns the
land, unless there's more than this.
MR. THORNTON: Okay. The state has--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it doesn't say that.
MR THORNTON: -- the state has asserted to own the land.
That's all the letter says.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And just another question for staff.
Isn't the developer currently paying taxes on submerged lands?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you know.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If someone can answer that question.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. I can't answer that. The petitioner may
be able to.
MR. CORACE: Don Corace, Signature Communities. I'll be
glad to respond to that issue. Based on the title research that
we did, the owner of the property, A.L. Doherty Company, does
pay taxes on that property, which is considered to be submerged
lands.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Because this is an issue
I've heard at the Florida Association of Counties, other counties
going through the same thing, property owners paying taxes on
submerged lands. It's not a clear-cut situation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go ahead.
MR. THORNTON: That's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Radler would be Linda Krajewski.
MR. RADLER: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is
Warren Radler. I'm a resident of Pelican Isle and North Naples.
I've been asked to speak on behalf of a coalition of homeowners
in the -- what I call the Vanderbilt Drive corridor. We decided in
deference to the commissioners, we would not have 25 people
speaking. We saw what happened this morning and everybody
has a right to speak, but we thought it might be better if we
Page 150
December 12, 2000
limited our comments.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Appreciate that.
MR. RADLER: For your information, however, and some of
you may know this, about 75 neighborhood people appeared at
the planning commission. You have in your agenda package
letters from these citizens. So I want to make it clear that we
are, indeed, concerned citizens. We are neighbors of this
proposed project. We include people at Pelican Isle, at the
Marina Bay Club, Cove Towers, Tarport Cove, Arbor Trace, and
others. There are several thousand people who live in this very
beautiful part of North Naples. And I think we're dealing here
with a very special piece of land.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask you a question before
you go tell us your opinion? Do you have --
MR. RADLER: I don't have an opinion. I'm just going to
voice some concerns.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Before you serve as the
conduit for those concerns, can I ask you, do you represent all of
those, I'm trying to figure out who it is? Each of those
homeowners' associations or individuals --
MR. RADLER: No. I've been asked at a meeting that we had
where the developers were present just last week to speak on
behalf of these various --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of the people who were at the
meeting?
MR. RADLER: Of the people who were at the meeting who
purport to be presidents of those condominium associations and
we're doing this in an effort to cut it down. There are some
people here who are going to speak.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate it. I just wanted to
get it straight.
MR. RADLER: I think I'm speaking for -- at least the majority
of the several thousand people who live in that area. And I'm not
here to offer my opinions, but merely to tell you what the
concerns are, and I think the commissioners and the public need
to hear about this. Because it is a very special piece of land.
Let me tell you what the -- let me highlight the concerns of
people who live in the neighborhood. And I think there are some
lawyers who are going to speak after me. By the way, I am a
lawyer, but not a Florida lawyer. And I'm not getting paid for this
Page 151
December 12, 2000
either, so. But I think you should understand this. We're very
concerned about what happens to what we call the preserve or
the mangroves. We understand that there's a conservation
easement. We do not know what the timing is. We have heard at
various meetings that they will not -- that is the developers, will
not give up their rights to docking space. We do not know
whether that means marinas, and we'd like to hear on the record
what the plans are with respect to the preserve. Most of us are
out there in large measure because of these beautiful
mangroves, and while there are very good things said in the PUD,
amendments to PUDs are possible.
So we'd really like to hear a little more from the developer
on the record here in this meeting, what their plans are for what
we call the preserve, nor do we know what the timing is.
Our second concern is one that has already been discussed,
namely, the height of these towers. With the exception of the
15-story tower at Arbor Trace, I believe in that entire strip from
111th Street to Bonita Beach Road, the highest tower is nine or
ten stories. What's proposed here -- I think I'm right, but I may be
wrong, what's proposed here is a minimum of four, perhaps five
towers to 20 stories. People are very concerned about this, not
from a density standpoint, but from the -- from an aesthetic
standpoint. Because what you have here is preserve.
And, third, I live there and when someone tells me that
there's no traffic impact, we could hire all of the experts we
want, but I invite any commissioner at any hour of the day to
travel south on Vanderbilt Drive from Bonita Beach Road and you
will wait for a half hour at 111th Street. And this is before the
impact of the Dunes development has been felt, developed by
Signature Properties. I'm very concerned about that, as I think
are the residents. Other people will speak about some of the
ecological impact that this proposed development offers. There
are some problems here. The eagle is not the least of it. There
are -- there's other wildlife that I think we need to be very, very
careful about.
I'm here simply to let this board know that a couple of
thousand of your constituents are awfully concerned about this
project. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Staff, we can come back
then. We will take these at the end about heights, traffic. I want
Page 152
December 12, 2000
to say this on traffic, if you never built another unit in the area,
you'd still have traffic problems. We're well aware of that.
That's why the corridor studies are going on. That's why we're
doing everything we can to accelerate it. But whether or not you
build another unit or not, the traffic is not going to go away.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Linda Caduski followed by
James Heyda.
MS. CADUSKI-' Hi. My name is Linda Caduski, and I work for
Arbor Trace, the community that borders. Sorry, Ron.
MR. OLLIFF: He was just trying to get Katie to switch to the
visual.
MS. CADUSKI: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. There's 91 units that are
at Arbor Trace and I represent the homeowners of those units, as
well as the -- excuse me, I also have a cold, Naples Development
Group who are the developers of Arbor Trace and we're currently
under construction with the final phase of Arbor Trace that will
be shown on the aerial over there of Tower Point, which would
be an additional 120 units and homeowners.
Our community is comprised of mainly villas with two
mid-rise buildings and then the one high-rise which is out
furthest west on the piece of property. Our mid-rise homeowners
and our villa homeowners are very concerned of course of the
height of the buildings that are project -- proposed to be built
right next to where their homes are. They feel like they're going
to be left in some of the shadows.
So, of course, the building height is of concern our
homeowners there. And, yes, we do have a 15-story building
ourselves, so I can't exactly stand up here and ask you to make
them only five levels, but we are asking that maybe you would
limit those to a maximum of 15 for all the towers, not just the
first tower that's proposed to be built bordering the Arbor Trace
community.
Environmentally, I know you've heard about the bald eagles.
There is more than one eagle. And the record of that nest, there
have been five eagles that have been born on that property. Our
owners have watched and observed those -- that nest for many
years, and do enjoy doing that. The nest location, I don't know if
you're aware, has changed from the original nest. In 1994 there
was a change in the location, and in 1997, it was actually
discovered that the original nest had been cut down, but the
Page 153
December 12, 2000
eagles did not leave until -- choose to leave the area. They did
remain and just relocate their nest to another tree.
So I know that this whole project really borders on when
this eagle flies the coop, so to speak, but I think that these
eagles have shown that they really don't want to leave that area.
So I just wanted to make that point. And I don't personally know
what the eagles' plans are, but it just seems that they want to
stay in the area. And they do feed down by the Wiggins Pass
Marina.
Traffic, we've talked about it, and it is a concern. I live r the
North Naples. Obviously, I work at Arbor Trace. I drive that
road, Vanderbilt Drive, 111th, many times a day. There have
been times where it will take you at least a half an hour to get
about a mile. We ask -- the homeowners ask that maybe the
traffic -- the roadways and infill structure are in place prior to
keep developing the area, and maybe it's not just Signature
Communities' development that we're talking about. It's just
that whole area being developed as quickly as it is. It's actually
a very dangerous road. I don't know if any of you-all drive that,
but there are a lot of people that run, they walk, there's lots of
bikers, those bridges are horrendous. I hold my breath every
morning when I drive that I see that there's someone on a bike
that's going over that bridge, because I just pray, you know, let
me slow down so I don't hit them.
So there are a lot of concerns, not only with the number of
the vehicles that are on those roadways. There's really -- the
way that it's designed, the bridges are really just not safe, and
there's more than one. I think there's four or five different
bridges that we're concerned with.
The emergency service vehicles, there's always a concern.
I do work for a senior community, so we do tend to see more of
the emergency services ou¢ way, with some health issues of our
residents, and with the roadways so congested, the response
time is not as quick as it could be. Sometimes it isn't as quick
as we'd like to see it, for the safety and health reasons for our
residents.
So those are our concerns. I appreciate the time. And we
hope that you will consider our concerns. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Could you tell me when you had your
project approved and when you started the development for
Page 154
December 12, 2000
Arbor Trace?
MS. CADUSKI: The Arbor Trace development has been there
since -- it's been there nine years actually. So all of that has
been in place, the tower was originally back in the original PUD,
however, the developers chose to wait on developing the entire
piece of property up until this past couple of years ago, and have
decided to develop that piece of property now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
MS. CADUSKI: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is James Heyda, followed by Bob,
I believe it's Distier.
MR. HEYDA: I have been sworn in, and the spelling of my
last name is H-E-Y-D-A. Honorable commissioners, Mr. Corace
and Ms. Bishop, I live on the north end of Tarpon Cove. I would
be just south of that finger that Mr. Nino pointed out to you some
time ago. And by the way, I have some petitions from some
residents of Tarpon Cove. Is it permissible to pass this out at
this late date?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can inject them into the public
record if you want, we may already have them, but --
MR. HEYDA: No, you don't. This is -- they might're been
faxed to you, but I'll pass these out and hand one to Mr. Corace
or Ms. Bishop.
At any rate, our concerns are that much of the development
is going to be shunted off into that finger, or what I call a
peninsula, in that petition that you're receiving. That little
peninsula is a separate tract of land and it's zoned for residential
3. If the developer has his way here, he would like carte blanche
authority to put in as many units as he thinks is appropriate at
some future date. We would like that either to remain zoned the
R-3 or at least have you, ladies and gentlemen commissioners,
put in some restrictions that the number of units that he can put
in that narrow peninsula, that is located directly north of Tarpon
Cove and directly south of Falling Waters and, if you notice on
the map, you can see how that would impact us. That is
something Mr. Corace gave us, and it shows even like a caddy
club. We'd be concerned about having a caddy club there. We
would also be concerned about the maintenance facility, and we
would hope that you would put some restriction in relation to the
maintenance facility that it couldn't be right there. And we
Page 155
December 12, 2000
would appreciate any other sort of help that you could give us, so
that that area of land remains consistent with what it is right
now, and what it is presently zoned.
Mr. Corace also mentioned at some other time, at some
other hearing, at the planning meeting that his intention, when
he starts building, and he indicated at springtime, that he was
going to come in off of 41 between Tarpon Cove and Falling
Waters. We're also concerned about that. On the west side of
Wiggins Pass -- or the east side of Wiggins Pass Road, there is a
cement material yard, so that many material trucks, cement
trucks, use Wiggins Pass at the present time.
So we would be concerned about all of those vehicles
coming off of 41, rather than coming in off of a different location;
namely, off of Wiggins Pass, and not going behind our houses
during the construction phase.
Lastly, the last speaker told you about the bridges. And I
think that even Ms. Bishop who's a bike rider will tell you about
those bridges, if you asked her. There's two of them. They are
extremely narrow. No bicycle rider, I shouldn't say no bicycle
rider, but any bicycle rider or pedestrian that starts going across
those bridges, when two cement trucks or two large trucks are
going by that pedestrian or bicycle rider takes his life in
jeopardy. And there's a great bicycle path that goes all the way
from 111th Street northbound to these bridges, and then on both
sides of the road, there's a bicycle path along with a -- I should
say a bicycle path and a pedestrian path that goes all the way to
Bonita Beach Road. All of your bicycle riders use that. That has
been indicated in some other publications in the county as being
one of the most dangerous areas. I take it that's my time. Thank
you very much for your concerns. We'd appreciate any help.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can understand your last comments,
sir, and regardless if this project wasn't in front of us, that
condition with the bridges exists, regardless of any --
MR. HEYDA: Well, what I'm basically saying is any help you
can give us, please do it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I agree. And that's why the
corridor study is so important to -- and I'm looking to Norm Feder
to help us with that, to see if there's some interim things that we
can, wings on those bridges, perhaps --
MR. HEYDA: Well, maybe even a stop light where a
Page 156
December 12, 2000
pedestrian can put it, but something needs to be done there. I'm
sure Mr. Corace would be concerned about that, and anything
that you can do in that area, we'd appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we want to do that, because,
see, the DEP, the environmental protection, we just can't go in
there and widen that bridge tomorrow morning. But we may be
able to find some alternate ways to work with the existing bridge
to relieve the concerns that all of us have in that community.
So I appreciate you bringing that to our attention, again, but
that's an issue that, you know, we are working on right now.
MR. HEYDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker?
MR. OLLIFF: Bob Distier and following him will be your last
speaker, Anthony Pires.
MR. Distier: Hi, I'm Bob Distier and I live here in the north --
Tarpon Cove, north, and I have a couple -- few questions for the
commissioners. We have a few concerns and one of them is that
the current zoning is single-family, I believe I'm correct on that,
it's single-family. And with single-family it controls the design,
ownership and use of the buildings. And the developer cannot
give us an exact number of units he's going to put in there or a
location. We would like to know the number of units that are
going to actually be put in that area that they're going to
develop.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're talking the finger?
MR. DISTLER: Pardon? Yes. I'm talking about the finger
unit, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm talking about the finger unit.
The second thing is the type of building construction and the
quality, you know, we feel that Tarpon Cove, we have a quality
building, and they're aesthetically pleasing and go along with the
area. Buffer zone and landscaping the building and how are they
going to landscape it? Is it going to go along with our area or is
it going to be something totally different?
I guess the last question I have is the construction traffic
road. We would like to see the construction traffic road or the
roadway be brought in either from Wiggins Pass or Vanderbilt,
rather than bring all of the trucks and everything right through
the preserve area, our neighborhood area and Falling Waters.
And that's all I have. I think everything else has been
covered.
Page 157
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. DISTLER: Thank you for your time.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Anthony
Pires of the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo,
representing some interested property owners and residents in
the area of this project. I guess the first issue I'd like to address,
some of you'd call it a hypertechnical issue or a technical issue,
is who is the owner of this property? Who is the proper
applicant? The PUD document states that the subject property
is owned by A.L. Doherty Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation.
Page 51 of your agenda packet indicates the applicant is Keith
Sharp. I don't know Keith Sharp. I don't know who Keith Sharp
is and his relationship to A.L. Doherty Company, Inc. The
application, as far as the agenda item, indicates the proper
applicant is Vanderbilt Partners II Limited. I checked with the
Florida secretary of state. I'd like to make this part of the
record. It indicates that Vanderbilt Partners II Limited is a
Florida limited partnership with a general partner of C G & S
Investors, Inc., out of Detroit, Michigan. I believe that this
board's ordinances require specificity and detail as to ownership,
including all stockholders, shareholders and officers of any
corporation and all partners involving partnerships so that the
board is well aware of who everyone is that has an interest in it,
to ensure that any advisory board ruling on the issue, that none
of those members have conflicts of interest, coupled with the
fact of the ability to control that. Perhaps there are some other
items, but I don't see any in the packet. There was reference --
and also a point of concern, in the presentation by the petitioner
that we have an option contract and that's why it seem to be a
little wobbly on the issue concerning commitments under the
PUD. As I understand it, once that PUD is in place, those
commitments are part of that PUD to run with the land.
But I think it's inappropriate for this board to even consider
this. Mr. A.L. Doherty Company, Inc., is not indicated as signing
this application. Keith Sharp is not indicated as being an officer
or director of that corporation. Vanderbilt Partners II, LTD, it has
a general partner of C G & S Investors, Inc. And, no one from that
entity has signed this, and no officers, shareholders or directors
are disclosed.
So I think you have a fundamental flaw out of the shoot.
Page 158
December 12, 2000
Additionally, with regards to this particular project, some
other aspects involving the other aspects of it. With regards to
the conservation easement, I understand that the PUD requires
that there be a conservation easement recorded and made part
of the public records, pursuant to the typical conservation
easement scriptures. We would like to -- the residents would like
to have an opportunity to review that before it's recorded to
ensure that it meets those criteria.
And, secondly, that that's recorded prior to any issuance of
any development order for any development activity in this
project.
Now, you may hear the petitioner indicate that before they
get their environmental resource permit from the state agencies,
that that conservation easement needs to be in place, but there
are areas that they do not need the ERP for where they can begin
development activities prior to the conservation easement being
recorded. I believe that the commitment to provide the
conservation easement is one of the paramount features and
aspects of this project. So I think, therefore, the PUD should
specifically say that instrument is of record prior to the time the
first development order is issued for this particular project.
You've heard the residents address the issue with regards to
limiting building heights to 15 stories. I think it would -- once
again, I'm not a planner, but from the standpoint of how the
compatibility issue is addressed as you go north to south, if I
heard the presentation correctly, that it's 15 to the north
abutting property owner in Arbor Trace, 15 would be the first
building on this site. The next four would be 20 and then one off
site to the next property owner to the south is 10 -- 15, 15, 20,
20, 20, 20, 10, I'm not sure what the transition is. I think the
planner will indicate that's at the edges, but we would like to
have a uniform height of 15 feet (sic} for the maximum buildable
height in this particular project.
Once again, I don't believe -- it's my opinion that this is
premature because of the fact that the option contract is not
attached to the application that is in the agenda packet, that I
see the wrong party has signed the application, and that it's not
appropriate to go forward. And if you do go forward, I'd like to
have those development commitments in the PUD. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Corace, I think there's some
Page 159
December 12, 2000
questions for you. Would you like to address those? I've made
some notes, maybe you want to take the last issue that was
raised first about ownership, and who applied and is all that
properly constituted in these documents, and the county
attorney is declining, so if you can answer that for us.
MR. CORACE: Don Corace with Signature Communities. I
don't know if I can answer technically what the gentleman has
brought up. I do know that Keith Sharp is one of the officers of
Signature Communities. He's the president of Signature
Communities. The entity that he referee to as C G & S. Those
are the initials of principals, two principals in our company, one
being Corace, the other being Griffin and the other being our
equity partner Soave. That's what those initials stand for. That
is the general partner of -- C G & S is the general partner of
Vanderbilt Partners II.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we need to know who the --
is C G & S a corporation? MR. CORACE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to know who the
shareholders are of that corporation. We have to know that to
know if we have a conflict.
MR. CORACE: The shareholders are Richard F. Corace,
Gerald Griffin and Anthony Soave.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you spell the last name?
MR. CORACE: S-O-A-V-E, no relation to the Soave builder
here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Okay. AndSare there limited
partners in addition to the general partners, because we need to
know 100 percent of the ownership of the applicant?
MR. CORACE: I don't believe so. But that would have to be
-- I don't know the answer to that question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only problem is that our staff
should've caught this and brought it to your attention, that we
needed to have that information before --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can you have someone in the group
check that out before we conclude this hearing?
MR. CORACE: I'll try to do that. As far as the A. L. Doherty
Company, they are the owner of the property. We have an option
for that property. A. L. Doherty, through their attorneys, have
been advised of the PUD. We've been working with them, James
Page 160
December 12, 2000
Elkins, Esq. represents Doherty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sometimes it happens, it
happened last meeting, I think, that there were not attachments
to the application that were in the file. I don't know who the
planner is on this one, but if in the file it says as a part of the
application that if you are -- if you have a contract for purchase,
then you have to list the names of contract purchasers, including
officers, stockholders, beneficiaries and partners, and I thought
there was also a requirement that the contract, itself, be
attached with maybe the financial -- that's not a requirement?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't think the contract itself, but I think
disclosure of all the partners and even the minor shareholders is
required.
MR. NINO: Yes, we normally require that, and I thought -- I
overlooked it, and I thought it was in the package.
MR. OLLIFF: I think we can maybe address some of these
other issues that have been brought up and then -- and come
back to that, and they should have an answer for you by the time
we get back to that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Could we address the issue of
the construction -- the construction entrance was an issue.
Question also about how many units on that finger. Is there any
guidelines here?
MR. KANT: Mr. Chairman, Edward Kant, transportation
operations director. I had a discussion with Ms. Bishop and with
Mr. Corace about the construction traffic, and it was our concern
that the -- any additional construction traffic using Vanderbilt
Beach -- Vanderbilt Drive or Wiggins Pass might over stress the
road, given that we are already performing a significant amount
of maintenance on those roadways, and we requested that they
consider using US 41 as their construction access.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we put any parameters, Ms.
Bishop?
MS. BISHOP: I'm sorry -- excuse me, I'm multi-tasking not
well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we put some parameters in
the time frame of when construction traffic can enter the
project?
MS. BISHOP: Certainly. I mean, obviously we--we're
looking at normal working hours to begin with.
Page 161
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Construction is not really
normal. It's not nine to five.
MS. BISHOP: Well, that's true. I'm starting to think about
across the street. Their construction over there starts a lot
earlier. I'm suggesting to you that construction usually starts in
-- I know that my husband goes to work by seven o'clock. So I'm
suggesting that they probably start between 6:30 and seven
o'clock in the morning. And most of them stop construction
around four or five o'clock in the afternoon. That's a pretty
typical workday for most of earth work, and keeping in mind that
we're talking about the golf course, specifically, and that it's --
that the construction of that is really earth moving. To that
degree there will not -- we only have one structure on this prop --
project, that's the golf club itself. Well, besides the little
localized bathroom places around the golf course, but that's the
only thing that's going to be, right this moment, that's going to be
under construction.
The multifamily element of this area -- until I've finished the
environmental resource permitting and -- which we showed
earlier, the maintenance facility was originally located behind
Tarpon Cove. We've now moved that and that is going to sit on
what would be considered wetland areas. I most likely will have
to give up some of those other development areas along that
finger. So I can't say when or how much I'm going to be able to
develop at that point. But the construction traffic itself for the
golf course will start upon permitting of the course itself, which
we expect to be in spring, and then it usually takes about eight
months to build the golf course. So by the time people come
back for .... for -- from up North down to here in season, we
should be almost complete.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So the golf course itself will be
practically done and not be a construction issue. But then we go
to the units, and I think maybe then we might be asking for some
consideration for the people adjacent to it, but we don't know
yet.
MS. BISHOP: I really don't know how many I'm going to be
building or even in what time frame that I'm going to be building
those. If you look at this drawing that's up there now, you'll see
-- the maintenance facility I'm going to have to move west, and
the only place I have the ability for that is that wetland area,
Page162
December 12, 2000
which means I most likely will have to give up development in
those areas to some degree.
So I can't, with any sureness tell you what I'm going to have
left to develop there. Now, obviously, if I'm going to build those
condos, then access off 41 for construction, they're in, they're
out, I mean, there -- there won't be a long trail past these people.
There'll be construction behind them and then when it's
completed, the buffers will be in place and then construction
traffic will be gone, which is pretty typical, I mean, I live on a
construction site, which is pretty typical even in my own yard,
SO,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So there will be buffering between the
properties that is going in here?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. And we will -- and we'll certainly
make it compatible to what they have also there, and enhance
what they have in place is essentially what we would be looking
to do there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that your structures would be
compatible with the -- with the neighborhood.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. And, also, I want to point out that the
construction traffic itself, they'll be about -- because of where
the construction road is going to be located within that future
100-foot of Livingston right-of-way that we're giving, that we will
-- there will be at least a 200 foot buffer between them and
Tarport Cove for that construction traffic. That's 200 feet that
I'm not going to be touching until after we're completed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would just request that when
you know specifics, that you would advise both of those
homeowners' associations that are affected by that and have a
meeting with them and give them an update on what it's going to
look like, and this is our time line for doing this, and this is where
it's going to be located. So people will clearly understand that
we've done everything we can to be compatible and not be
disruptive any more than we have to be if something new is
developed.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. I think that's reasonable and we
would certainly want to keep the communication lines that we
already have established with our neighbors in place, so that we
can be a part of the community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm still digging on this -- I'm still
Page 163
December 12, 2000
on the same point but, if Mr. Nino could look, it says here in the
application submittal checklist that a copy of the deed and a list
of the identifying owners and all partners of a corporation, it says
that was received by us. So you may have that. It would be
useful.
Karen, would you show me where US 41 is?
MR. NINO: I didn't bring the entire file with me.
MS. BISHOP: You can't see it on this map. It's about a
quarter of a mile from -- to the east. It's that finger that sticks
out on the other side there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay.
MS. BISHOP: And we have no plans at this point to do the
multifamily there, because we have a lot of environmental
permitting that we're going through. We've changed the golf
course several times to accommodate flow-ways that are going
through there, natural habitat for the gopher turtles, those kinds
of things. So we're in this homogenizing process of
environmental permitting that we expect to be in for several
more months. And at that time we will put the -- which speaks to
what Mr. Pires was discussing, is the conservation easement. It
is -- there is no way that I can work on any part of this project
without an ERP permit. It is not possible. The ER -- the way
Collier County demands and the LDC says you must have your
water management permit before that. The district will not allow
me to piecemeal my water management permit.
So I will be required to permit the whole site through that
process and then at that time I will be required by the permit to
have a conservation easement in place, and it's usually 30 to 60
days after you get your permit, or you will be in violation, and
they will fine you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So if I'm understanding this correctly,
as soon as you can get the approvals through the permitting
agency, you then can definitely say these are the areas, these
are the set asides in perpetuity and we will maintain them and/or
our homeowner groups, unless some other group steps up to the
plate and says, we would like to take these over and maintain
them?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. And we may not be able to build on
one of those pods at all. I mean, they're -- during this process,
you're not -- you cannot go in there thinking this is what you're
Page 164
December 12, 2000
going to get, because we've been changing already several
times. So there maybe -- obviously a lot less of what I think I'm
going to be able to do there just through the permitting process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And to the buildings on the west side,
will you, in order of those structures, tell me which one's 15,
what is 20, et cetera, so that we might have some --
MS. BISHOP: Fifteen would be the northern one adjacent to
Arbor Trace, and as it lines up, it lines up, if you're looking on the
aerial, which we have overlayed our maps on aerials, will line up
directly with them.
So there is no -- it's not sitting back, it's sitting directly, so
the people that are in the villas will pretty much have a golf
course behind them. I mean, that's essentially how this
development goes. If you take my line and you continue it up to
Arbor Trace, their 15 stories sits inside their property, and that is
on the same alignment as my buildings. So after that, you have
the golf course there, and what that golf course is going to be
what -- pretty much what these neighbors are going to see.
They're not going to see buildings out their back doors. Well,
actually, their views are to the lakes, if you look on their -- on
their plans, their views are towards the lakes, so really they will
look at those as they drive by, they will see the golf course on
their southern side as they go into their units.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And there's a question of an ST line,
which your buildings do not violate that, because it would take
us into wetlands.
MS. BISHOP: Well, I'm suggesting to you that the ST lines
on our maps for Collier County were done with aerial overlays
and that just in printing and a blueprint, you get a quarter inch
per foot stretch, which doesn't really give you any real
indication. We've done vegetation maps and we have topo done
on the land that gives us a better indication of where those
properties are, but I can assure you that we are not getting to --
going to encroach into the mangroves with our development. We
have left it open for us to perhaps maybe have a -- a boardwalk
for a scenic walk through there like many of these associations
have farther to the north like Emerald Bay, and I think there's a
few other ones that have these. But we are not intending to
have any connection to those mangroves, other than those kinds
of boardwalks, and we're certainly not going to be building in
Page 165
December 12, 2000
them, because that's a no-no.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There's no boat docks in any of this?
MS. BISHOP: We're not showing any boat docks and my
application to the ERP doesn't show any boat docks at this point,
and I'm suggesting to you that I'm not giving up my rights to boat
docks, but that the chances of me adding them to my application
or dredging that area, where I would have to dredge to get those
boat docks, are probably pretty slim.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Especially after it's in a
perpetual conservation easement.
MS. BISHOP: Exactly. Because I would need the permission
of the district to go back, and I think the chances of the district
giving me permission to do that are pretty slim.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Never happen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think I have answered all of those
questions, at least that were brought to my attention. Well, you
have a 15-story, and then going back to the building heights the
rest are 20; is that correct? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Fine. I answered that question.
And now I think we're back to ownership.
MR. CORACE: Don Corace, Signature Communities. I
apologize for any application, any information that was left off
the application, or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, can I just tell you though,
Mr. Corace, it says here that you've submitted all that
information. It's just not in our packet. MR. CORACE: I see.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The checklist shows that it was
submitted.
MR. CORACE: Okay. Just for clarification, the owner of the
property is the A. L. Doherty Company. The option is in the name
of Vanderbilt Partners II, a limited partnership. The general
partner of Vanderbilt Partners II is C G S (sic), Inc. The
stockholders of C G S, Inc. is Richard F. Corace, Gerald Griffin
and Anthony Soave. The limited partners of Vanderbilt Partners
are Richard F. Corace, Gerald Griffin and Anthony Soave.
In addition, C G S Corporation, the officers of C G S are Pete
Saputo and Keith Sharp.
Page 166
December 12, 2000
So that should -- I know it's rather convoluted, that we'd be
glad to put that in an application form and make sure that the
commission's aware of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All I needed to know, was there
anybody who I might possibly represent and as that list shrinks,
the more I sit here instead of out there doing real work, the
answer is no, there's no conflict.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying you're just
playing right now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. This is so much fun.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Any other questions for the
petitioner? Any other public speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, there aren't any. But just because, I don't
want staff to end up getting caught by people who come later, I
think this was committed as part of the record, I want to make
sure that the record's clear about what it is that you're
approving, because unless some of these things are committed
to as part of the final language of the development order, it's not
part of the development order. And the only things that I've
heard that have changed from the petition that's been submitted
to you, is there was a commitment that the developer was going
to move the maintenance slash caddie club, that is shown on
that site plan. And I'm going to say by looking at those rough
site plans, and when you put a scale in my hands, it's a
dangerous thing, but I'm assuming somewhere around 1,500 feet
MS. BISHOP: Actually, if you look at our PUD master plan, I
show the maintenance facility west already.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay. But -- okay. Is that part of what's
submitted as --
MS. BISHOP: Correct. It's already there. The plan that we
have been showing is part of our environmental resource permit,
which is, obviously, a lot more detailed than that, and that's
when it got moved to the uplands, and now we're going to move
it back over to where it was.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the PUD master plan map
shows it where it will actually be?
MS. BISHOP: On the west side away from the residential for
Tarpon Cove.
MR. OLLIFF: That's fine. And that's a commitment made on
Page 167
December 12, 2000
the record. That's fine. The other commitment that wasn't made
is in the form of a commitment, but that I want to see if the
board would like to be in the form of a commitment, was the
restrictions in terms of construction traffic. I heard on the golf
course construction, which was east of Vanderbilt Drive, and I
thought I heard a commitment for seven to 4:30 in the afternoon
somewhere in that range. Is that a commitment that we can
include in the development order?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, that's really useful of you to
I appreciate it, because we do get confused there often
do that.
times.
MR.
to 4:30?
seven to
CORACE: Don Corace, Signature Communities. Seven
The current regulation in the County, I believe, is from
six; isn't that correct?
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. That was just what was committed -- or
as indicated as normal construction type timing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seven to five.
MR. CORACE: Well, I -- I wasn't here when she made that --
MR. OLLIFF: Seven to five.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about seven to five?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, I'll just make
a comment. Five, everybody else is on the street. Wouldn't six
be better?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the point. Six might be
better.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, get them off the street at a
time when everybody else is on the street.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Besides the fact is -- it's a 200
foot easement between the nearest property, and that, you
know, that kind of settled my mind that we're going to have some
MR. OLLIFF: It may not even be important that it be a
commitment. I just want to make sure that the board's aware.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Apparently not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Apparently it's not a commitment, we'll
just stay within the ordinance.
MR. OLLIFF: And that's fine. They're existing county
ordinances that dictate the times for construction will continue
to apply to this project as well.
MS. BISHOP: And I want to clarify that there is 200 feet
Page 168
December 12, 2000
between us and Tarpon Cove, but to the north -- the people to the
north have dedicated 67 feet for the future Livingston roadway.
So there's only 67 and a half feet. Now, obviously I'm not going --
I mean, it's 100-foot right-of-way. My construction road is going
to be on the south side of that right-of-way. So in theory they'll
have about 110 feet, 115 feet between the construction road to
the north, but it's not 200 feet there, and I don't want you to -- I
don't want to mislead you that there's 200 feet, but there is over
200 feet on the south.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 200 feet on the south by 110 on the
north?
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
MS. BISHOP: And when that road goes in, they will have
zero buffer to Livingston roadway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Yeah, by the way, two more
questions.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This one's easy. You'll love it. With
eagles, when they choose their new home after the fire there, I
read there--
MS. BISHOP: Yes. There was a big fire there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did they go back to the same tree,
or did they choose a new tree, but the tree is already dead from
the fire?
MS. BISHOP: I'm assuming that the fire came after they
were in the tree. Now, before what was happening, that tree
that was knocked down before, that tree was knocked down,
they'd already moved to a new nest. And the tree that they were
in was knocked down. Then they chose this tree in the center
and that fire has taken out pretty much all the trees available left
in that area, except for a small little group near the 15-story
that's being built now, which I doubt they'll move to there, and
there's a couple of tall trees still available down near the marina,
which they may move back to that area. So right now, where
they sit, there are no other trees in the area for them. They're
going to have to go south or to north, but they can not be where
they are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the other question, and
I'm sorry if I'm delaying this, but why does everybody seem to be
Page 169
December 12, 2000
worried about the peninsula? The rest of the property nobody is
worried at all, everybody's just worried about that little piece,
how come?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's called their backyard.
MS. BISHOP: Right. Apparently-- apparently, which is
something that we hear a lot, which I -- and I certainly do feel for
the people who get themselves involved in this, that when they
were sold their units, they were told something that was not
true. They were told that they -- that the developer or whoever
sold them, had control over the property of somebody else's
property. And that they were told this was going to be preserves
forever.
Now, it's true that the preserves in their property will be
preserves forever. But whoever told them that we could control
what somebody else was doing on somebody else's land,
obviously was kind of a mistake for that to happen. I personally
believe that zoning documentation should go with every sales
contract so that this doesn't happen.
But so you have to -- I have to understand how they feel.
They were told something and I understand that. We've made
changes to our plan to be compatible to what they're doing there,
including the setbacks for our buildings will be compatible to
their setbacks. The buffers will be compatible to their buffers.
And even more than that, we'll be happy to use the same
template, the same landscaping template for our landscaping, so
that we have more than compatibility, we have an expansion of
what they already have. So I can understand why they -- why
that is an issue for them. Because they're going to see that
more than they were going to see anything else. There's a big
preserve between my property and the first units there. They
may never see anything on that site. Most of those units, two
buildings, if you remember that plan, two buildings in the
four-plexes face due north, and the ones that are closer to 41
actually face south of -- their garages are what we would look at,
their garages out of our back units essentially.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I know I've asked this
question two times already, and I'm going to ask it a third time,
just to make sure there's no misunderstanding. If you're able to
build these buildings on the peninsula, can we be assured that
they'll be used for your work force housing, for your caddies and
Page 170
December 12, 2000
your other employees? Will that be the designated use for this,
or is it open for discussion?
MS. BISHOP: It's a residential use, which means it's
condominiums. I'm going to suggest to you that it's going to be a
little difficult for us to sell condos on a major arterial roadway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that.
MS. BISHOP: And that the -- that the most compatible use
for that is employee housing and for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you state that, now, that
that's what you would do?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's in the hall.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He's in the hall, and I think --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I would like to hear that stated,
because I haven't heard it stated.
MS. BISHOP: I'm going to suggest to you that that is their
intent, but I'm going to -- I don't know whether or not -- how much
we're going to have there. If we can only build two buildings that
may be a problem providing work force housing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, one of the reasons why
I've been so supportive of this is because I thought you were
taking the initiative here, and I just want to hear it said out loud
that if the space, if you are going to build buildings down at that
end, that you'll designate them for work force housing for at
least your own residence there, the support group for your
residence.
MR. CORACE: Don Corace, Signature Communities. Yes, we
would agree -- we would agree to that provision that as a part of
the multifamily, some of those residents will be our employees,
but it's not going to be exclusive --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're a little vague on this.
MR. CORACE: -- it can't be exclusive --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' No, I understand that.
MR. CORACE: -- of employees.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But do you think you might be
able to have enough to be able to satisfy all of the employees
you'd have there?
MR. CORACE: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. CORACE: Probably not. We have over 60 employees --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, do you think you might be
Page 171
December 12, 2000
able to do 50 percent? Some is evasive, it could be one unit and
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Coletta, what if he said that
at least 50 percent of the housing that he can build on that finger
will be available for work force housing? Because he doesn't
know how many units --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, I understand that. I'm
looking for a percentage -- I'm looking for a commitment other
than some. Everything's been very vague up to this point in time.
MR. CORACE: Well, we can't make a commitment -- first of
all, some of these employees already may have housing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that would be a good faith
effort on your part.
MR. CORACE: And I think that's the only -- that's the only
effort we can make at this point is we can make a good faith
effort to provide housing for those employees with the
clubhouse, but to stand here today and say that we will allocate
-- we guarantee that we allocate 50 percent of that housing for
employees, I don't think I can make that commitment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right. My concern is the fact
that we have our work force coming from Bonita and from
Immokalee, traveling across the roads, adding more of an
impact, and this is one of the reasons why I've been very
supportive for your project.
MR. CORACE: And we recognize that. And that's one of the
reasons why that's a consideration for this project, but to say
that we would allocate 50 percent of the housing for employees
-- first of all, we don't know if the employees would want to
locate in the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that, but there
must be something in the way of verbiage you can put out that'll
make me feel a little more comfortable --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about -- Don, what about do
you anticipate that that's going to be rental versus ownership
housing? Do you know that yet?
MR. CORACE: No. I would assume --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you identify a price point
that those homes won't exceed, so that we know that they're at
least in the neighborhood of being affordable by work force? I'm
just -- I'm grasping at straws here to try to -- because I
Page 172
December 12, 2000
appreciate Commissioner Coletta's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- trying to get to the right to
place here. I'd like to help him.
MR. CORACE: I believe the -- the market value of the units
that are to the north at Falling Waters and to the south in Tarpon
Cove are in the range of 200,000 -- 250,00, I heard from the
audience.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. CORACE: So we would probably want to make those
units more affordable than that, because that necessary isn't an
affordable unit. So I would say that it would be a lower price
range. What is economically feasible for us to build, I don't
know. I guess -- I guess the question is what is the definition --
what is your definition of affordable housing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That the -- the people that you
have employed in your -- on your grounds there, that they can
afford to stay at the location within, you know, on that peninsula
right there. They'll be able to live there in the housing you'll
build, by the wages you pay them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. So you can tell us --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I don't know how more
simply you can put it than that. I mean, are these people going
to be able to afford, I mean, if you consider affordable housing to
be $2,000 a month, then obviously these people are going to live
in Bonita or Immokalee and be on the roads again and nothings
been accomplished.
MR. CORACE: Well --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't mean to make this
difficult for you, but I just have not heard an answer yet, and I
still --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, Commissioner, in all due respect,
there isn't an answer to your question. They are saying they're
going to commit to do what they can, but I don't know how, if I
was standing out there, how could I tell you up to 50 percent, up
to 20 percent, up to 30 percent, and does that mean that every
developer that comes in here on a PUD, I'm going to ask the
same thing, set aside work force housing in your development up
to--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, yes, exactly.
Page 173
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- up to a certain percentage, and then
say this is how much you can charge for it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not. I think this might be
the new direction to go in and the new thought process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm not going to go there. Is
there anyone -- I'll tell you, I will listen -- I will listen to what
they're trying to tell me in that they will try, and if they can set
aside 10 or 15 or 20 percent, fine. But I don't know how I can
ask them, today, to give me a percentage and a price range,
because I don't think they can do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there anyone from staff that
can assist us on this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got any ideas, Bob?
MR. MUI. HERE No. I have to apologize. I'm sorry. I was
engaged over there
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Also multi-tasking. How might
we -- how might we reasonably define the amount or the nature
of work housing to be built in the finger part of this project, if we
were going to be sure that there's actually going to be some
work force housing there?
MR. MUI. HERE: There is a methodology that's used, I'm not
sure we can do it right here, right now. There is a methodology
that's used, for example, in the DRI process that looks at the
number of jobs that might be created, based on the number of
dwelling units, and normally you extract from someone then --
some funding or some commitment to affordable housing or work
force housing through that process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What they typically do,
Commissioner Coletta, which you'll find out on the RPC, is they
usually write a check, and then they don't have to build -- provide
for any affordable housing on their project, and they've sort of
paid their dues. But that doesn't address the issue that I think
you're getting to, and that is the social_implication of putting all
of the affordable housing in one part of the County, and the
transportation impacts of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think you're on a great -- going
down a great road. I'm curious to see where it ends.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't disagree with the road, but I'm
Page 174
December 12, 2000
trying to get this thing resolved, and I know the developer wants
-- everyone wants to get this resolved, and when you start talking
about a specific percentage or a number of units, I don't know
how we can do that. I mean if you've got 60 employees, does
that mean 20 percent of the people are going to live there. Help
me with that.
MR. CORACE: I have an idea. What we would propose is we
-- for the units that we -- if we -- when we build multi-family units
on that finger, we will agree to offer to our employees housing
and we would agree to offer them 30 percent of the housing that
would be on that finger. That's a percentage that, today, I feel
comfortable with committing to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's a very fair
percentage, but when you agree to offer, are we back to the cost
factor on this?
MR. CORACE: Well, we can offer them -- well, the cost
factor we would have to, obviously, make it affordable for them,
if our -- if our intent is to provide housing for these employees,
we would have to make it affordable to them, and we would
make it affordable to them by means of subsidizing their rent, if
they rent the facility, if they want to purchase, there might be a
way we can work out a mortgage situation, where they can
purchase that property. There's a number of avenues we can
take. To stand here today --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I appreciate where you're
coming from now, and--
MR. CORACE: I'm doing the best I can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- you're doing great. You're
helping a freshman commissioner through the process a little bit,
and I do appreciate your patience with this, and if there'd be
some way, of course, that we'll be able to document this at a
later date, what has happened, I would assume -- and get a
report back like four years from now or five years from now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds to me like this would
be an additional condition that -- as Mr. Olliff was trying to
outline them before, but that if a motion were made for approval,
it would be with the additional condition that a minimum of 30
percent of the multi-family housing -- as a matter of fact, here's a
motion, a motion for approval with the condition -- all of the other
conditions from staff, but an added condition that a minimum of
Page 175
December 12, 2000
30 percent of the multi-family housing to be built on the property
that we've identified as the finger, and I don't know how to
describe that legally, but somebody, you know, we've all referred
to it in the map, that a minimum of 30 percent of that property, of
those houses, will be made available to employees of the project
at a rate of either rental or purchase, that is affordable in
accordance with the salary paid for their position, and that we'll
bring back some documentation that will -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Love it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that will either describe how
that will be done, whether it's through rent subsidies or through
purchase money financing, but that's a fabulous step in the right
direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I commend Signature
Communities for taking the initiative to do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. You guys have done
a lot of things right on this project
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you can second that, but I have
to go to council and find out if we're okay with this, checking
that base and then, Mr. Nino.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's always good to have corroboration or
approval by the petitioner on the record of everything you're
discussing here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So would you agree to the motion
that I just made, Mr. Corace? MR. CORACE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means we didn't make him
do it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we're all right with that. I think
we're fine. Mr. Nino, did you have something --
MR. NINO: Yes. I'd like the record to show that we intend
to amend two stipulations, the two transportation stipulations
having to do with the additional right-of-way for Vanderbilt Drive
with no consideration for impact fees, and we'll -- I understand
we'll restructure that to accomplish that and the Livingston Road
east/west reservation.
We also need an additional stipulation in the PUD that -- to
the effect that any amendment to the bald eagle plan must return
to the EAC or whatever entity replaces it.
Page 176
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All of those are incorporated in
my motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that we have a full gopher tortoise
preserve that is going to be set up here, because I read that.
You're not moving any of the tortoises.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nope. That's in there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's in there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Tortoises home, eagle's home --
MR. CORACE: There is one point that Mr. Pires' brought up,
was the ownership interest of A. L. Doherty Company. The -- we
believe the information for that -- the ownership of that
corporation has been given to the County. We don't know the
answer to that as we stand here today. If the County does not
have that information, we'd be glad to provide it tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's make that part of the
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a company in Chicago, A. I..
Doherty?
MR. CORACE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I thought I read that in here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- I know I don't have a conflict
with the company in Chicago, so I'm going to not worry about
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not worried.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, yes, please do provide
the documentation, if it isn't already in the file.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Why don't you make that a part of the
motion, that they will provide it if it's not already there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be the right thing to
do,
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Include it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Anything else, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: That's it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know what else you could
get out of these guys.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They've been wonderful.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm fine.
Page 177
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're fine, good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion, do we have a
second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying Aye?
Opposed by the same side, motion carries five 0.
MR. CORACE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a good one.
Good job there, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, good job on your part.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I think we're to the next item.
MR. OI. LIFF: Mr. Chairman, we need to swear in and
disclose.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If everybody, please, quiet, we're
actually to item B, zoning amendments two. Everyone who is
here on petition PUD 99-13 need to be sworn in.
(The audience was sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Nino.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A disclosure, if I could.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, yes, disclosures.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've met with the petitioner's
representative.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: None. I have met with the -- by phone
with commissioner's representatives, and I think in person, prior
to this being a combined Balmoral & Alexandria, if any of them
are members of the EDC, Chamber of Commerce, president
forum, I've also seen you there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to say, no, I've never,
but I'm members of all of those too, otherwise I don't know who
even is involved.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It includes Publix and Albertsons if
you want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I've had no official meeting
with any one of these people for this development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not in my capacity as a
commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Mr. Nino.
Page 178
December 12, 2000
MR. NINO'. Yes. For the record, Ron Nino with Development
Services. The petition that's before you is located in the, by
now, famous Whippoorwill Lane area. Whippoorwill Lane, Pine
Ridge, Livingston Road. You have Whippoorwill Woods,
Whippoorwill Pines, Whippoorwill Lakes, and Arlington, most
recently approved. So all of the pieces are coming together.
This petition purports to provide 296 dwelling units for a
density of five dwelling units per acre. That density is consistent
with what is allowed by the density rating system. The density
rating system will allow an additional unit attributable to
interconnection to two or more major streets. Therefore, this
petition is consistent with the future land use element.
The petition is also deemed to be consistent with the traffic
element, in as much as it doesn't trip the five percent level of
service C threshold nor reduce the level below the thresholds,
otherwise allowed on the -- within the radius of the --
development of radius and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I don't mean to
interrupt you. But I -- what's this five percent I keep hearing?
Who established those numbers?
MR. NINO: That is established by the traffic element in the
growth management plan that says you will determine what -- if a
project does not exceed five percent of the level of service C in
the road that it impacts, you shall consider consistent with the
traffic circulation element --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Coletta, you have
MR. NINO: -- that is in -- that is in the growth management.
That's a measurement -- measurement of level of service that
triggers an impact.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'- So only 20 of these projects can
go on any given highway?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
MR. NINO: No~ no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Coletta, but you
have identified the really important point that it may be
something that this board will still look at, because basically
what that five percent trigger does is says that we don't have
much authority to turn a project down for traffic, unless it trips
this magic number, and the magic number is, if you're going to
Page 179
December t2, 2000
have five percent of the cars that are necessary to cause a road
to go below a level of service C.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we down by five percent?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's only after the project is built, I
mean, if it's not going to be five years down the road, it's all a
cascading affect here, and it's something, I think, in our
workshops we have to look at.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if, you know, people in the
community keep saying, well, how do you keep approving these
developments even though the roads are so clogged, and the
answer is our growth management plan says, we're not going to
talk about traffic unless it trips the magic five percent number,
and that's why we might need to look at that in the growth
management plan and talk about it in a transportation workshop.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if it's a significant area of impact
which takes in a lot of these, then we will have another
opportunity. And I think Norm Feder is going to address that.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I'll throw out --
and then I'll go back to the specific issue at hand but I think it's
important for you to recognize also that the way that that is
looked at right now is assume vesting of the traffic that will be
generated off of the current land use when somebody comes in
with the PUD, you're only looking at the level of traffic generated
above and beyond what normally would've, if it's considered
vested, if you will, even though the lands not developed today,
and then applying that against that five percent standard is
whether or not it significantly affects the roadway system.
So you're not even attending to -- so if it had the ability to
develop three units per acre, and it's vacant today, and the
proposal is something that's five units per acre, you're only
looking at that two units per acre relative to that traffic impact.
MR. OLLIFF: In fact, it's exactly the example you just saw
where the underlying densities under the comp. plan, would've
allowed three units per acre versus the total number of acres.
So when we're looking at it from a traffic standpoint, your staff
doesn't have a choice but to tell you there is no traffic impact
from this, because it is a lower density than what the
comprehensive plan would allow as a maximum type density.
So, yeah, this is the kind of thing, I think, if this board wants
to have that discussion, I think --
Page180
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' You betcha.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a transportation workshop
scheduled, and I think that's the appropriate place for us to
really dig into this issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good catch. Excellent.
MR. NINO: When we deal with traffic, it's also important to
appreciate that there are other -- there are other measurement
standards; in other words, if roads within the project's radius of
development influenced roads that are going to be impacted --
that have an impact, not only the immediate roads, but roads
some distance away, that if those roads were operating below
their design level of service, and you have a correction; for
example, Pine Ridge, is currently operating as a deficient level of
service, however, we are in the process of correcting that
deficiently. If a project is within that window, and the window is
three years in the circulation element, you're obliged to approve
the project based on traffic considerations. The traffic
considerations should not be a factor in denying the project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, in three years, if
you -- if you've solved your problem, but you've added three new
developments, I don't think you've solved the problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, he's living by the rules that
have been written before. We've just got to rewrite them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' It's time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well -- but also -- but then this project
that's in front of you, the prior board hammered out an east/west
connector -- not a connector, collector in here, so that we could
begin to deal with this to keep the traffic off of Livingston and
not overburden that road before it was even designed and built.
So we made a right move here. We just need to keep
defining it. And you'll hear more about that as we go through --
MR. NINO.' We have a project, again, infrastructure, is
available, so that this project meets all of the tests that is
established by the growth management plan for determining
consistency with the growth management plan. Now, aside from
that, again, like in the other case, we have the issue of
compatibility. What's proposed here is housing. What is
developing all around the project is housing. The densities are
similar where -- similar or greater in the PUDs to the north. Quite
frankly the densities are a little higher, because they are within a
Page 181
December 12, 2000
four plus three density band, and they were approved with
slightly higher densities. So we're coming down in a transition
as we get further away from that intersection of 1-75 and Pine
Ridge Road.
So this project is consistent with all of those elements. We
deem it to be compatible because it's housing of same or similar
nature.
Now some of you recall when we dealt with all of these
PUDs in the Whippoorwill area, this is over seven or eight months
ago, we came to you and asked you to apply a common number
of -- common stipulations to all of these PUDs that whenever
upsizing of infrastructure is required, these folks will all pay a
portion to share of the cost of any -- increasing the size of any
required infrastructure. It also said that Whippoorwill Lane and
an east/west connector there too would be established and that
would be a public road, would not be the east/west lake would
not -- on that property owner, would not be able to have a gated
community, other than if they provided a public road and then off
of that public road they could gate until their hearts content, and
to that extent, this PUD contains all of those stipulations that we
required of all of the other PUDs that were approved recently in
this area --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, Ron, I know you're
trying to get something out, but that didn't seem to gel with what
the CCPC recommendation, if I'm -- am I reading the right one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think I'm reading the same
thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It says the planning commission
unanimously recommended denial, because it did not include all
of the development conditions that were to be made to
complement all of the PUDs in the area. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Correct.
MR. NINO: Correct. However -- however, that was -- the
petitioner agreed after the planning commission meeting that
they would indeed carry all those things forward, and even
though the planning commission -- the reasons for the planning
commission's recommendation of denial have now been
corrected.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. NINO: And the petition before you, is one that I'm sure
Page 182
December 12, 2000
the planning commission would now approve. We recommend
approval of the PUD that is contained within your package.
However, there are some -- again, some issues that Mr. Feder has
addressed in the past few weeks that may cause the developer
to respond, because they are -- they are of significant impact,
and I'm going to ask Norm to speak to them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Before Norm speaks to that
issue, was the interconnect on the water line, Whippoorwill Lane
and the Livingston Road for a loop system, is that been taken
care of?
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. FEDER: For the record, again, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. I've got four quick things I wanted
to present to you. The very first is the issue of interconnection.
The project is seeking the increase of one dwelling unit per acre
to five units per acre on the basis of interconnection. In your
write up and by their orientation, as you see by the structure of
what they've proposed, their definition of interconnection is the
fact that they connect two public roads. Their proposal
specifically -- let me put this up on the prompter, if I can figure
out how to use it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you say they connect the
public roads, it means this isn't a gated community, you can
drive through it?
MR. FEDER: No. This is a gated community, and by
definition they've said that the definition of interconnect, and
inter in my dictionary says, through, but nonetheless,
interconnect is the fact that they connect to -- as they're
proposing, Livingston and to the Whippoorwill north/south --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's meaningless.
MR. FEDER: -- and by connecting the two public, they're
declaring themselves as interconnected --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't agree.
MR. FEDER: -- and, therefore, one. I'm not surprised.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. FEDER: Nonetheless, I wanted to raise that as the first
issue to you, a concern about interconnection, and I'll raise that
in a minute and what we're going to propose to you for possible
modifications for consideration by the applicant.
Page 183
December 12, 2000
The second issue I'll raise to your attention is one that we
already had, and I'll let this one go to a future workshop, and that
is the issue of significant impact on traffic impacts.
Third is the statement that was made, and I do have a
concern to raise to you on the fact that they have committed to
the Whippoorwill stipulations. Again, I'll go through what is
proposed, and why I don't feel that that is the case. Although, I
think we can make changes to get to that point.
And then the last issue is to specifically recommend to you
maybe some modifications to at least what was presented to us
as the proposal. Specifically what I have over here on the
teleprompter, I don't know how legible it is, but the circles are
the access points that *were requested in the material that was
provided to us. Specifically, having acquired the Old Alexandria
conceptual PUD, I guess you should say, because it's known as a
PUD, that they were proposing to come in between the two as an
access point to Livingston. Our first feeling was that with the
commitment that the County and others are making to
Whippoorwill north/south and to east/west, that, in fact, there
should be no connection at all to Livingston Road. You took
action in the six laning to establish Livingston as a controlled
access arterial desperately needed in the County. However,
working with the applicant, we are prepared to ask staff to
recommend to you that if there is access, and we could agree to
access on Livingston, that it would need to be up at the northern
boundary of the property, such as to be at the very northern
limits of the Old Alexandria PUD, and that it be a right in, right
out only, and that it be developed in such a manner as allowing
for the future joint use with the horse farm, which based on the
Arlington Lakes, and at least this proposal both as gated
communities, would only have access opportunity to Livingston
Road. And that is honestly, folks, the reason that I'm even
recommending any access to Livingston --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because the horse farms is going
to have to have one.
MR. FEDER: -- is because the horse farm, if and when it
develops in the future, at least here we would have a situation
wherefrom current signal spacing of a proposed east/west, which
I'll hit in a minute, as well as a current signal up here.
Kensington we'd have a situation where we'd have good spacing
Page 184
December 12, 2000
at that location, at the northern part of their planned PUD, and as
a joint access with the horse farm, and a future development of
the horse farm.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Which would essentially join -- provide
for the horse farm, which is the future, and two PUDs have been
brought together. So that we're really going to take three
parcels, they can utilize one intersection of a right-of-way.
MR. FEDER: That is correct to try and control access, and,
again, only as a right in, right out that I'm making this proposal
that there's any access onto Livingston Road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about (sic) Baltimore down
at the bottom -- what -- how does that connect?
MR. FEDER: Balmoral and Alexandria, which is now part of
Balmoral are one in'the same. So they would have to
interconnect internally within that proposed gated community
from that one access point off of Livingston.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So does that mean off of Livingston
that one little point that isn't a gate?
MR. FEDER: No. They're still proposing a gated community.
But what we're saying is they would have to establish their
access in a manner that their gate would be sufficiently far back
and located in a way that the folks at the horse farm when and if
it develops, could also access that right in, right out off of
Livingston for their future development, should that happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's your opinion about the
gated feature?
MR. FEDER: Let me go to my next provision, and then I can
probably answer it even better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: If you'll bear with me, and let me finish the
issue of access point, and then let me go back to your question.
Their proposed access as we are showing is recommended by
staff as well, to the east/west Whippoorwill and they showed a
provision of 40 feet on their side for that extension of the
north/south Whippoorwill, we concur on that. What they did not
show, though, was what I'm showing here as a 40 foot -- as part
of the future 80 foot east/west Whippoorwill being provided on
the southern boundary of their property, this expanded property
of the two PUDs together. Essentially, you have at the southern
boundary of the property, right now the Kensington canal. What
Page 185
December 12, 2000
we're proposing here is rather than trying to get all 80 feet off of
Livingston Village, which does happen to be on the section line,
but nonetheless, we typically go 40 -- 40 off of each of the
individual parcels, that we would get 40 feet of right-of-way on
their southern boundary, such that at least a two-lane facility in
both directions could be developed along with the whole area
and the sidewalk, that would later become the two lanes
westbound of the east/west Livingston. Such time that
Livingston Village were to develop, then the other 40 feet would
allow you, on the other side of the canal, to develop what would
be the eastbound lanes, and then there would have to be a
bridging of the canal. But nonetheless that opportunity would
then exist. This way we'd have a commitment, which is not
shown in what's being provided here to that east/west
Livingston.
With everything that's been done before and that
commitment, I guess a few weeks ago, a few meetings ago, of
almost a million dollars for acquisition of the parcel we're not
getting through the PUDs to the north/south Whippoorwill, it's
very important that we, in fact, have this east/west connection in
that commitment made by requesting this 40 feet off of the
southern portion of this property.
We would also recommend, as we're showing here, that
there'd be a further commitment to that east/west by showing a
connection from this property, even if it is gated, to that
east/west Whippoorwill.
And back to your question, commissioner, I think you can
have the gated community in what you're doing with
Whippoorwill, is an example of where a gated community can
still exist, as long as that collector road system is being provided
for, is being developed, and that's the reason why we're asking
for the 40 feet off the southern boundary of this project. The rest
can be gated, but we need that strong commitment to
development of the east/west, before we can get locked out
somehow in the future.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I think it's great. Mr. Nino,
any other comments before we go to the petitioner, and how is
my (sic) recorder doing?
THE COURT REPORTER: If I can take a short break to
switch reporters.
Page 186
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure. Can I have Mr. Nino --
THE COURT REPORTER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- any comments he has, and then
before the petitioner, we'll take five and let you switch.
MR. FEDER: With the board's consideration, I'm sorry, I was
reminded of one quick thing. First of all, I need to point out that
the 40 feet we're requesting is north of the Kensington canal on
the southern boundary of the property, and the other is that the
responsibility for continuation and treatment of that northern half
of what will be the east/west roadway, will be initially to -- left
with the Balmoral PUDs responsibility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Responsibility for maintenance?
MR. FEDER: Yes, for continuation and maintenance of
retention relative to that section of the roadway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. NINO: I don't have anything extra.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Let's take five and let the
recorders switch out and then we'll hear from the petitioner.
(Recess was taken.)
Item #12B2
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 MAXIMUM OF 296 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE
FUTURE LIVINGSTON ROAD NORTH, NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY (C.R. 886) AND SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R.
896), CONSISTING OF 59.t6+/- ACRES - CONTINUED TO AN
UNCERTAIN TIME
CHAIRMAN CARTER: PUD 99-13. Is the petitioner ready?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While they're getting ready, I
guess, having seen that last petition I have to ask, do we have
any road right-of-way without impact fee credits here, and do we
have any affordable housing? All of those things that got in 90
percent preservation, I like the tone that was set with that last
development.
Page 187
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There is not a golf course here, and
it's not a gated community.
MR. MUELLER: Yes, sir, good evening. I'm John Mueller, I'm
president of Relleum, Inc., who's the owner of Balmoral, and I'd
just like to say to preface our comments is that we'd like to
discuss with you our position on what's been said today. I'm a
little flabbergasted because we -- up until yesterday at 11:00
o'clock, representatives of our company had met and talked to
Mr. Feder, and a lot of what was presented today was not given
to us until this moment. So we'd just like to discuss that with
the commissioners today. Then we may have to take it under
advisement.
Just as a comment as to the planning issue, Mr. Nino has
informed you that we had a session in front of the Planning
Commission where they denied our petition because we did not
have the global language in it. I will take responsibility for that.
There was a lack of communication between our company and
some of the planning staff, and once we had a meeting with our
representatives and Mr. Nino, I would tell you that our PUD is
probably the most -- is the most complete PUD in terms of
Section 18 in terms of the global language that you were
seeking.
As of our meeting yesterday at 11:00 with Mr. Feder, we did
agree to move our entrance from the 660 mark on our 1360 feet,
linear feet or quarter mile we own on Livingston Road, up to the
northernmost boundary. If you look at page 14 on our PUD,
basically all we were looking at was changing one word, which
would have been an access under 2.1.3. Instead of saying
midpoint, we would have said north point. We bought -- we
bought Balmoral.
First of all, I would like to inform you that we've been
developers here in Collier County since 1986. Our first project
was Kensington on Pine Ridge Road. Our current project is Sabal
Lake on Radio Road. We bought this -- we bought 40 acres of the
60 acres of Balmoral in 1992. We put in a private drainage
easement called the Kensington canal with three other parties.
It's a private reciprocal drainage system for our property. We
have water and sewer at the Livingston entrance or Livingston
Page 188
December 12, 2000
side of our property, which was part of our purchase agreement.
And because of the planning issues of interconnect where
we were dealing with our PUD with just the 40 acres of Balmoral,
we acquired Alexandra, which gave us more distance on
Livingston Road and also gave us the additional land we needed
so that we weren't dealing with a significant interconnect with
Alexandra.
As to the question that was brought up about
interconnection and the extra unit per acre, I'm not a lawyer, but
I can tell you that our property is fronted by three major
throughways, Livingston Road, which will be six lanes;
Whippoorwill Lane which we always thought was going to be two
lanes and -- I'm sorry -- Whippoorwill Lane, which is going to be
two lanes, and the east/west connector, which now sounds like
it's going to be four lanes. It's hard for me to understand why we
need a four lane running from Whippoorwill Lane, which is two
lanes, down to Livingston Road, which is six lanes.
I will tell you that the neighbor to our south, which is
Livingston Village, which is zoned by Wally Lewis -- I have been
dealing with Mr. Lewis for years as a developer. He's a very
difficult person to deal with. I know he's holding the county
hostage at the moment about drainage for Section 18. I'm
assuming that perhaps -- that this proposal to put part of the
east/west connector on our property, which is the first time this
has been brought to us, was done because they're not sure what
the situation is ever going to be with Mr. Lewis.
We have agreed to everything that the county has asked us
to do, including the last request, to move our entrance on
Livingston Road to the north, and I would just like to ask some of
the other representatives of our company today, Dominique Rihs,
who is our legal counsel, and perhaps our vice-president of
development, Greg Waterbrigg (sic) to follow up with their
comments.
I think every developer in Collier County has a cold. So I
apologize for the qualify of my voice, but I think we're all
spending too much time outside on the sites. Thank you.
MS. RIHS: Christmas greetings to all. My name is
Dominique Rihs. I'm the attorney for Relleum, Inc., and I will
follow up on Mr. Mueller's comments, mainly stating that we had
hoped to come before you today so that there would be absolute
Page 189
December 12, 2000
consensus and that's what we thought that we had achieved. I
had met with Mr. Nino, and we had come to inclusion of all the
global language that you had wanted. We are donating for free
the 40 feet off of Whippoorwill Lane that is necessary. We're
ready to complete donation agreement when that is read.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there impact fee credits
associated with that?
MS. RIHS: For the land, no. That is free, and we're doing
that as soon as they're ready with that. We actually are in the
second phase of that. So the donation agreements have not
been sent out on that yet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What else is there besides the
land?
MS. RIHS: Well, there will be the actual construction of the
road, and so impact fees would be given for the construction of
the road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's equal to what we had
in the project right before yours.
MS. RIHS: Yes, and, actually, as we stated, we are trying to
keep the language exactly the same in our PUD as all of the
other PUDs. In some of the PUDs before us, the language was
not all included. So you've got some stop gaps in between, and,
therefore, you're sort of hoping to catch them in the developer
contribution agreements.
Another thing that we went ahead to do to alleviate some of
the concerns is even though we purchased the property believing
we would have our sewer water off of the Livingston area there,
if the county determines that that capacity is not sufficient for
us, we will instead hook up with the Whippoorwill Lane,
contribute to them, and there will be no change really in their
design plans or anything whether we go one way or the other
way.
But we are trying very quickly to come to resolution on that.
We have our engineering firm working with Pugh, Grady, Minor
on that issue. So that will be known very quickly. We'll join into
the upsizing if needed, but our units are not going to make a
difference in their design plans. So we feel we have done that.
As far as my meetings with Norm Feder, we have sat down
with him. We really tried to have a spirit of cooperation and
understand that they are trying to have Livingston Road be with
Page 190
December 12, 2000
as few entrances as possible, and, therefore, we had already
done that by giving the midpoint. That was not our first choice
to have the midpoint, but it's the choice that we took because
the county wanted that.
We understand now that they've looked at it, and they want
us to take the northern point and we agreed to that. I left a
telephonic message actually to Mr. Feder on that point yesterday
at the end of the day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't this business that the -- the
only remaining issue is the southern boundary right-of-way?
MS. RIHS: That is the only issue that is before us, and it is
the largest because first of all we really are flabbergasted
because we've never ever heard it was to be four lane. You're
going two lane to something that was supposed to be an
interconnector, and now it's four lanes and going to a six lane.
We've never heard of that.
The other difficulty is when you have Balmoral, the southern
boundary line, we have all of the private Kensington canal on our
property. That is 40 feet. So you are taking 40 feet. Then you're
saying, go north another 40 feet for your road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did we take the Kensington
40 feet?
MS. RIHS: Well, you can't -- you don't -- you haven't, but in
his request, he's asking for you to hop over the Kensington canal
and then give 40 feet of our next property. So really you're going
80 feet deep into our property, and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How can you say that because
the canal is there? The canal was there when you bought the
property.
MS. RIHS: That's 40 feet, and they're going up the next 40
feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood but we didn't take
that 40-foot canal. I mean, the 40-foot canal was there, has been
there as long as I know.
MS. RIHS: It is a private canal that is an easement between
Kensington, Hiwassee, Relleum, and another owner that's
changed --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we didn't take it is what I'm
saying.
MS. RIHS:: No. It's not yours. It's private, but what you're
Page 191
December 12, 2000
stating is you want the next 40 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
road.
MS. RIHS: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Because we've got to build the
We need someone -- instead of
saying we want all of it on one side of the canal or the other,
we're trying to say we'll get half from your side and half from the
other side of the canal, even though splitting a road with a canal
is not the best circumstance, but otherwise, we're unfair to
either you or the southern guy.
MS. RIHS: It has never been discussed any other way, other
than the fact that it would be taken from Mr. Lewis' property
because of the additional difficulty, which is the lake that is
there is 660 feet, and that runs the entire length. So that's 660
feet. That's half of your east/west connector.
So you're basically saying, would you like to fill in all of that
lake, you know, so that you can have your road, then berm it and
have your canal? You're asking a lot of things, and that's why it
has always historically been that the east/west was on Mr.
Lewis' property.
Mr. Lewis has been actually negotiating with the county
because his property is necessary and is the only property that
will ever be able to give you all of the drainage that you need for
Livingston Road, as well as for some of Section t8. And
basically, you're going to have to deal with him and it will
probably be a taking, but you will have the deal with him.
The developer agreement that is in negotiation covered the
points on his access on Livingston, the drainage that you need so
desperately for Livingston -- for Livingston Road, and then,
thirdly, for the east/west connector road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're in negotiations with this
Mr. Lewis for that?
MS. RIHS: Yes. They haven't arrived at a conclusion, and
I'm sure they're very difficult negotiations. I give you that. It
appears there's going to have to be at some point probably a
taking on that because he's not moving forward on that. But our
engineer can certainly talk further to that to explain to you first
of all the difficulty we have making a decision about Kensington
canal.
We can't just decide that we're going to put a road over it.
Page192
December 12, 2000
We'll be sued by Kensington because they have a private right.
That's why it's named after them. They are the main user. So
there are a lot of things you're asking us to do, and I think that's
why way back when the east/west road did not get put on
Arlington Lakes, which I stood up here and fought for and
recused myself from the present client.
It was always though going to be on Mr. Lewis' property. If
you look at Balmoral, it is a very thin piece of property, and it will
end up being a partial take if you go forward with doing a
two-hole lane and sidewalk on the south side -- no, the north side
of that canal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The north side, southern
boundary.
MS. RIHS: Yes, because you will have lost so little property
that he will not be able to do anything but have the connect road
to Whippoorwill Lane.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody needs to show me on
a scale on the aerial or something where 40 feet would go. MS. RIHS: Can you show him?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we also need to have Norman
Feder back to the mike.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes because I have a question
about that lake.
MS. RIHS: We don't know how deep it is at this time. We'll
give you that because, I mean, we've really been caught off
guard. Actually, when we read the memo this morning when we
got it at 11:30, we thought that what they were saying is that
they would just do half of the east/west to the point of our lake
and then go down to Wally Lewis, and we thought, well, that
wasn't really that great of an idea either because you're still
going to be "S-ing" it and you're still going to be slowing down
traffic and you're still going to have to deal with Mr. Lewis. So
you haven't gotten anywhere, and I believe what you're doing is
you're holding yourself hostage because it looks like it's easier
to put it to us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How wide is that strip, that
portion of your property? How wide is it? Is it 120, 150 feet
wide? Yes, sir. How many feet wide is that? MS. RIHS: 660.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So 40 is going to make it not
Page193
December 12, 2000
usable?
MS. RIHS: No. You've got 40 and 40 is 80. I can't help it
with the other 40.
MR. OLLIFF: Just to put it into perspective, 40 feet is from
where you're sitting to go that camera.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. That's just not going to ruin
your project.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Feder, I have heard their'
comments. Do you want to -- you know, first I heard four lanes
and north lane two because you signalled that to me so let's try
to get this in perspective.
MR. FEDER'- By all means. First of all, I do want to note that
I did meet with Mr. Fernandez and with Dominique Thursday at
11:00 o'clock. At that time, we went through all of the
particulars on the project. My concern at the time was that with
the concept of developing Whippoorwill north/south and
east/west, their connection only be from this barge (sic) of the
gated community to the collector road system being developed
specifically for that purpose. They asked that I look further
because of their needs on the project, that it's very important
that they have access to Livingston.
I told them that I would look at this issue more. That the
issues are a little bit different in the sense that this is fronting up
Livingston as opposed to totally fronting up against this
Whippoorwill concept, which is basically the ones that preceded
this one and told them if they would to call me back on Monday.
Let me look at this a little bit more. I'll be happy to get back to
them.
They did call me back, and at that time, I expressed to them
that if we did have access, I really felt it would have to be at the
very northern part of the property and a joint access with the
farm. That that is the furthest I could possibly go, although I had
some real concerns about access onto Livingston, but it was that
important to their project. I also asked Dominique specifically
why was the perception that east/west was only going to come
off of the property to the south, in this case I believe that's
Livingston Village.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is the Mr. Lewis' property?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Lewis' property. What I was told by
Dominique was that that was because you always take the
Page 194
December 12, 2000
right-of-way on the section line, and the section line is the other
side of the canal. Therefore, it should all come off of Mr. Lewis'
property. My feeling on that and I told her I'm not sure I
understand that and I think there needs to be a commitment to
this east/west. I don't have any development on Mr. Lewis'
property coming in on the significant commitments we've made.
I did not specifically address to her the 40 foot, so I want to
acknowledge that right now, but to address your concerns in that
area and did not agree to the north access, nor agree not to raise
the issue on the 40 feet. I have done that today, and I raised that
to the development staff to share, I believe, it was yesterday.
But, essentially, what I to want to tell you is that the issue
that I have in concern is to wait on the other project. That other
project came to us asking for an agreement with Mr. Fernandez.
That if they provide some retention, that they get a full medium
opening in the middle of their property, which to me did not
signal a strong commitment to the development of the east/west
Livingston corridor.
With that in mind and the fact that we have the canal, which
is not part of the property, is the Kensington canal, and I was
approached with, well, gee, we can't now use the canal. What I
was told in my meeting on Thursday was there's no desire to use
the canal. That the water is not of the quality they want to go to.
That they were going to actually pipe under it. That's what I
was told in the meeting.
We are only talking two lanes, Commissioner. I'm sorry. I
think I misspoke on the record before by saying four. It's only
two lanes, but the concept initially in that right-of-way would
give you the option to develop two lanes without what you really
want, which is the future provision of berm and the sidewalk.
Once you get the other right-of-way on the south side of the
canal, then you can have a two lane or the boulevard that we're
trying to establish with this space and the sidewalk within that
40 feet we're asking.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Norm, if we got the 40 feet
that we're asking for along their southern boundary, we would be
able to build a two-lane road?
MR. FEDER: We could initially if the other wasn't
forthcoming, yes, but our issue would be to eventually have that
as one lane moving westbound and then south of the canal one
Page 195
December 12, 2000
lane eastbound along with sidewalk features. What I will also
tell you about the issue on the lake and we looked at it with what
they gave us in the drawing you see here on the teleprompter. If
you notice their lake they said, existing lake reconfigured.
If you take basically a scale based on the 40 feet that
they've shown of the drainage easement that exists outside of
their property anyway and take that 40 feet across there, it fits
in with what is the current borrow pit, but it does hit just a little
bit of what they have shown on the reconfiguration of the size of
the lake.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Am I the only person who would
really it -- I would like to see a nice magic marker line drawn
across that picture there to show me where if you get the road
you want, Norm, where would it be?
MR. FEDER: Someone with a steadier hand than me but
okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. FEDER: About on the tree line here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't see how that would
destroy this project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think one of the things we
have been remised at for many, many years now is our traffic
problems. We certainly know, the three new commissioners,
that was paramount in all of our elections. People wanted to
know what we were going to do, and we have to start taking a
strong step forward in holding the line and start -- we have to
make a new way or new way of attempting to approve all of
these PUDs, letting people know that we must interconnect
roads so that we can move that traffic more freely. Norm is
leading the way, and we have got to support him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
gated community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
I agree. I agree 100 percent.
Either that or this can't be a
Right.
So that we have an
interconnection between Whippoorwill and Livingston.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We still have other questions
that haven't been answered then.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That is the whole thing. You can have
the gate. Here's an east/west road. You're right. You're
Page 196
December 12, 2000
absolutely right, commissioner. It can't be both ways.
MR. OI. LIFF: Mr. Chairman, we still have a number of items
to go. I'm going to suggest to you let the petitioner finish up with
his last presenter, and then you have one public speaker after
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WATERBURG: My name is Greg Waterburg (sic). I'm a
civil engineer for Relleum, Incorporated the developer on this
parcel. I guess a couple of things I would like to add to what has
already been presented in addition to the to the 40-foot
Kensington canal easement, there is also an additional 30-foot
easement to the north of that presently on there that is for
utilities for the first half of the original 40 acres that we own,
being right here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Norman, would that work?
MR. WATERBURG: So I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure
about the legalities of what has been proposed here today. I
guess the other thing I would be concerned about is the
esthetics and the safety of the road section that has been
proposed here. We're talking about a road that is split with a
canal in the middle and also a lake on one side of it. I think
we're looking at guard rails. We're not looking at a pretty road
based on what I'm hearing today unless -- I just don't think that
kind of a cross-section is something you want to get into as far
as the safety issues go.
MR. FEDER: You would probably have some sections of
guardrail. That's why we're looking at 40 feet to have some berm
and some ability try to try and make it conducive to the
community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Landscaping, we'd have space in
there for that?
MR. FEDER: Yes, because you build your lane, your surface
linage, and then you have sidewalk and some ability but you
would probably guardrail unless you get sufficiently away from it.
MR. OLLIFF: Any other questions of the petitioner?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions of the petitioner?
Seeing none, we'll have a public speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: We do, but I think he has waived. Mr.
Yovanovich? He's waiving.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He's waiving? Close the public
Page 197
December 12, 2000
hearing.
MS. RIHS: May I say just one last thing? We would like the
board to only consider this if they are going to consider it
without the stipulation of the 40 feet for the east/west being
taken out of this PUD. Otherwise, we would rather at this time
table then to have that decision made because it does have a
great impact and we could continue to, I believe I was told it was
January 9th; am I correct?
MR. OLLIFF: That's the next board date.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does our agenda look like
on January 9?
MR. OLLIFF: It's going to be bad.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's going to be what?
MR. OLLIFF: Bad.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I don't want to continue this until
January 9. I'll be glad to continue it, but, please, you know, not
to an agenda we're already going to be here until 8:00 o'clock at
night.
MS. RIHS: Well, the only issue that we would have before
you because we have given on every other issue other than the
fact that we believe that a road for the east/west is being placed
on our property because it's the easiest way to go instead of
having to deal with Mr. Lewis. And, basically, I think what is
going to happen is he will negotiate with you, and the road will
always be on our property and our property only.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think I'll tell you where I am as a
commissioner. You may have that -- you may request to
continue, but my decision won't be any different if you come
back to me on the 9th or today. I want the 40 feet. Mr. Lewis is
another issue. We have other considerations with him. That is a
separate project, but I'm not going to change my mind but it's
your call.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
continue this Item 4, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we say for an uncertain time
and readvertise it or something instead of putting it on our
January agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For an uncertain time.
MS. RIHS: That's fine, too.
Page 198
December 12, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: That would be at petitioner's expense.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course. Let me ask who Mr.
Lewis is?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's irrelevant here. You'll find
out, too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know. I don't know either.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So a motion to continue, second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Indefinitely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Whereupon, unanimous vote of ayes.}
Item #12B3 - Continued to January 23, 2001
Item #12B4
ORDINANCE 2000-89, RE PETITION PUD-00-17, MR. DONALD A.
PICKWORTH, REPRESENTING BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT CO.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "1" INDUSTRIAL TO "PUD"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS 1-75/COLLIER
BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD ALLOWING FOR
COMMERCIAL RETAIL LAND USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951} AND DAVIS BOULEVARD (S.R.
84) - ADOPTED
That takes us to Item B320016. This has been continued
until the 23rd. That takes us to Item B4, summary agenda 17B.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, do you want to swear them in?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's what I have here unless the
summary agenda has been moved -- 17B moved to Item 4.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was a request from
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was me. Yes, that was me.
MR. OLLIFF: We'll need to swear everyone in and have
disclosure.
(Whereupon, the parties were sworn in.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Disclosure on the part of
commissioners?
Page 199
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with Linda
Marshakowski (sic) -- I'm sorry -- once way back before I was a
commissioner, but she explained her project to me then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I met with no one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know if I have ever met with
them or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think I have. No
disclosure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Ray Bellows, and I'm a principal planner with
the Planning Services Department. As was noted, this is a
summary agenda item. It was approved unanimously by the
Planning Commission and by the EAC.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I interrupt you then?
Because of the late hour to ask what the concern was that got it
polled from the summary?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. That's a good way to just get
right to the heart of the matter. The whole thing seemed great
except for the problem it's going to be creating on Davis
Boulevard. Because we're so concerned now with traffic
problems and trying to solve some of these problems -- is Mr.
Feder here? Oh, good. It says here on page 2 -- and there are
other alarms throughout this thing, but on page 2 it talks about
the level of service. First of all, there are right now it currently
generates 1,012 cars. After this is rezoned, it will generate 2,595
cars. It says Davis Boulevard is impacted -- is projected to
operate at a level of service F at the build out of the project.
First of all, I don't believe we can live with that. Then it
says, as we go on, it has been deemed a state problem, but it
said in addition Collier County has never held up a building
permit for projects resulting from any concurrency issue on this
segment. And I'm thinking it's about time we do, and so that was
my first alarm. Then they're all, of course, about the same thing,
each one.
I have to tell you it seems like a nice thing that she's
wanting to build here. I am just concerned about the traffic. It
talks about the neighbors and so forth, the increase in traffic
entries, increase in noise, urban intensification, and so forth. I
Page 200
December 12, 2000
just had some real problems. It always regards traffic.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have representatives from the
Growth Planning Department, Stan Litsinger and also Dawn Wolff
with Transportation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you.
MS. WOLFF: I think this goes back to some previous issues
that you were questioning in regards to, well, there's nothing
here now. How can we say there's not going to be any
transportation impact? It's kind of like, these are the rules we
have in place that say, I get to take the difference between my
existing zoning, in this case industrial and commercial, and what
my potential impacts are. Take the difference and go, well, I've
got -- I have my level of service seat capacity of this road daily is
45,000 vehicles. Five percent of it is greater than the difference.
Therefore, I have no substantial impact. That's the case here.
But the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- Especially -- tell me if this is
right. They're coming from an industrial use to a commercial
use?
MS. WOLFF: But it's vacant today. But we compare their
zonings, not what the actual, physical -- and that's an old policy
that was established a long time ago. I think, yes, this is one of
the things we will be bringing back to you as we come to a
workshop the early part of next year. The other part is the level
of service of conditions on State Road 84.
It was the previous board's decision that that road just be
considered. It is a state road; state project has not been coming
forward. However, that is not to say that has not been moving.
We have a current PD&E project going on on State Road 84,
although we did not get any additional funding for a few phase,
they did advance the design phase for that section of road and
are continuing on working on what are the necessary
improvements from the whole 1-75, 951, 84 corridor in there?
So we are seeing movement on that project. It remains the
MPOs number one priority now that we have funding for Golden
Gate. I will probably guarantee it's going to stay there for a
while because that is a very tough spot to get funding for, and
we really want to put the state funds on that project. But it's the
same issue you all asked about earlier today in regards to, what
do you mean no impact?
Page 201
December 12, 2000
That's kind of the rules that we're going by right now and
unless you want to try and change something now, I don't think
we can deviate from that 5 percent threshold. The only issue is
a board policy decision that was made in regards to State Road
84, which is approximately a quarter mile in length on the
segment designated as the level of service up in this condition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's a terrible road by the way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, David, I understand without a
comp plan amendment,' we can't do anything about the 5 percent
threshold. That's the rule that we've adopted. Could we today
say the board is going to change its policy with regard to -- I
hope I wasn't on the board. I don't know when we had this policy
that we don't care about Davis because it's a state road. Was I?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe a way -- another way to
access or egress THIS property where IT wouldn't impact the
road like that? You've got a creative planner here. I bet he
could come up with something.
MR. HANCOCK: Tim Hancock, Director of Collier County
Services, Vaness and Daylor, are here with Mr. Don Pickworth,
the agent for the applicant, and Ms. Linda Marshakowski, the
trustee on the property. I'm afraid my creativity stops at private
property lines. We are surrounded on both sides by the
Westbrook Commerce Center PUD, and we have as a condition of
our approval also provided an interconnect connect to the south.
Even though there are no roads in Westport, they're going to
connect to it. We're hoping that hope something can be resolved
later.
We cannot provide an interconnect to the west because
there's a wetland there. So we have been isolated both
environmentally and from existing development plans to an
L-shaped configuration where accesses are Davis Boulevard and
951. One good thing is we promise no gates on our shopping
center, so people can get through it. So I'm glad not to have a
gated community before you here today.
But as Ms. Wolf indicated, as this process has gone along for
many months, obviously there are rules that have been in place
and policies that have been in place that we have been following,
and I know how frustrating it is to someone to have your hands
tied based on prior policies, and, you know, the question is
Page 202
December 12, 2000
project by project can you change those policies? I don't know
that you can.
What I can tell you is that we're just asking to be treated the
same as the properties in that area until that policy is changed,
and I don't think that is unreasonable. I think the alternative
here is that the project is turned down, what will be conducted
there is industrial in nature instead of commercial, and I don't
think that's beneficial for the general area itself either.
We are on a time constraint on the property. Some of the
trustee of this property are aging and have health problems, and
we, unfortunately, are going to have to move on the property. So
we don't have six to eight or nine months to wait to come up
with a different development plan. I wish we did, but we don't.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So if I'm hearing this correctly, Tim,
that the trustees, if they can't accomplish what they need to do
here, will sell the property? MR.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, and I apologize. By no means do I
wish to put some type of land use threat out there because I
used to throw darts at those all the time. But the reality is and if
Ms. Marshakowski needs to tell you that she can, you know, but
it's more of a personal nature for her. The trustees have told her,
we need to move on the property. We do have letters of interest
on the industrial existing zoning.
We, obviously, would rather do the commercial project from
a private, personal gain standpoint for the trustees. We also
heard clear direction from prior commissioners that commercial
was a better use of the land than industrial, particularly looking
at how it relates to interchange activity center, the interchange
master plan. It fits in better, but we will have to move on the
property in short order. I don't make that in any way a threat.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't a threat. I would prefer it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I have to say--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be honest with you. I worked
on the 95t, the industrial corridor, for the Chamber there, trying
to develop it, and I personally don't have a problem with
industrial there. We need some more industrial land along that
corridor. It's one of the few places except Immokalee who will
accept it. Not that I'm trying to shoot this whole thing down, but
like Dawn, I'm very concerned about the roads and the level of
service. I'm not going to approve it based on that just right out
Page 203
December 12, 2000
of the box.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, David, do we have the
authority? I mean, what kind of -- tell us if we're getting in a
quagmire here that we'd like to change that policy, at least as it
affects this piece of property. It sounds like we want to change
it period. I don't know how we ever got it in the first place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd love to, and if there was
some other way because these people are very nice people.
That isn't the point at all. You don't want to turn your back on
nice people. My point is I don't --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't think at 6:00 o'clock in the
afternoon that we're going to construct a policy change. I might
suggest to the petitioner that they may want to continue this to a
future date and give us some 30 days to begin the deal with this
and get some feedback from staff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, let's just don't
continue every dang petition that comes in front of us.
Sometimes we just have to say no, if no is what we mean. Just
like that last one, I just wonder if we shouldn't have just turned it
down.
MR. PICKWORTH: Commissioners, Don Pickworth
representing the owner of the property. I hope you won't take
that position on this. I mean, certainly we're not trying to be
obstreperous or be difficult. I mean, we have in good faith
pursued the zoning of this property because notwithstanding
comments about industrial being nice, this is not going to be a
high-tech industrial park out there on that corner.
It's -- the proposed project -- and I understand the
transportation policies you need to deal with, but believe me, the
proposed project, given everything that's in your vision
statement about the interchange master plan and the gateway to
Naples, believe me, as a commercial project, it's subject to that,
and we'll comply with it and will certainly be something a lot
better looking than going under the current industrial zoning,
which is not subject to the interchange master plan.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then perhaps industrial would not
change the traffic situation at all.
MR. PICKWORTH: You know, obviously, when you talk about
traffic, there's a lot of ways of looking at traffic. I mean,
certainly there is the industrial use based on the ITE manuals.
Page 204
December 12, 2000
You have less trips per day if it's industrial than if you do if it's
commercial, no question about it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Less traffic in the industrial.
MR. PICKWORTH: If you're counting -- if you're counting
number of vehicles that roll in and out, it's less, but, obviously,
there is a kind and quality of traffic consideration that needs to
be taken into consideration.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What residential surrounds this
property?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
MR. PICKWORTH: None. The only residential around -- by
the way, Forest Glen by the way it was in there, we unsolicited
got a letter of support from Massins (sic). So, listen, I didn't even
know who those people were, and they wrote a letter to the staff
supporting the project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, may I help out
here?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Fiala, if you take a look at
the development around there, it is some real nice residential
areas in your district and Commissioner Coletta's district. In
industrial, you could have a struck -- excuse me -- truck stop
there, and I think a more retail, lower intense commercial
instead of industrial would be more pleasing to your
constituents. The other thing is we do have the ability --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, but a truck stop, good grief.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. We do have the ability to
enhance that corridor over there of Davis Boulevard, even though
it's a state road, as long as we get the blessing from the state.
Am I right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but it depends on how many
years down the road it is, and what scare me is, of course, we
made the wrong mistake in the first place -- none of us did --
many, many years ago when we -- when we -- when we moved
Davis Boulevard around this way instead of pulling it straight.
Then we would have had two roads, Radio and Davis, and it
would have made it a lot better.
Now, we have to live with an error, whoever made that
many, many years ago. So -- but now we've got this two-lane
Page 205
December 12, 2000
highway, and, you know yourself how that -- the traffic is trying
to go off onto Radio or come up on Radio and there's all kinds of
commercial traffic on that street and it becomes very dangerous.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I concur with that, but I
guess what can ask transportation, do we have the ability to
improve that, that corridor, the 951, David corridor?.
MS. WOLFF: Actually, I was going to go ahead and let Stan
answer that one with the master plan issue.
MR. LITSINGER: If I may, Commissioners, for the record,
Stan Litsinger, a comprehensive planning manager. Not to be an
advocate for this particular petitioner's property, but I would like
to add a little input and a little quick history if I could as to why
you have this circumstance here.
First, I'd note that you will on January 9 be receiving the
interchange master plan FOR Interchange Number 9, which is the
entire area with the gateway to Naples, aesthetic qualities. I
can tell you that the proposal by the petitioner for commercial,
as opposed to industrial at this particular location, is more
consistent with the master plan that you will be approving on
January the 9th, and as a matter of history, this one-quarter mile
section of Davis Boulevard which is deficient level of service F
has been so for about four years.
And we came to you about four years ago and had to report
to you under a concurrency ordinance that technically we had a
concurrency situation that would require the Board of County
Commissioners to declare a moratorium around this one-quarter
mile segment. However, we also recommended that because it
was a state road, a state responsibility.
And the result of the moratorium would be a ludicrous
result, that we go forward and continue the development of the
area due to the very short nature and impact of this particular
one-quarter mile segment and there have been many projects
approved in the last four years around this particular segment of
Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I heard the answer, but to be
honest with you, I didn't hear the justification.
MR. LITSINGER: The justification was a political practicality
in that this quarter mile section has technically been deficient
under concurrency requirements for the last at least four years
and is brought back to the board each year when we bring the
Page 206
December 12, 2000
annual inventory report on public facilities. As a policy decision,
we have the -- the board has chosen not to take action,
corrective action, or to impose any type of -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Passport.
MR. LITSINGER: -- development restrictions because it's a
state responsibility, and we felt that the state should undertake
this responsibility. It's not a precedent. We have another road in
Collier County, which is Vanderbilt Drive between U.S. 41 and the
Ritz-Carlton, which had been deficient for many years, but the
community just did not want to improve it, so we declared that
policy constrained also. So for a couple of reasons, we have
made decisions in the past, even though a particular segment at
a concurrent time was deficient not to act on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask you a question, Mr.
Litsinger?? It sounds -- I think I'm hearing one little piece here
that might make sense. Despite the fact that this road is
deficient, we have continued to approve development requests
because -- tell me if I'm saying this right or wrong -- because the
development requests that have come in, like the one in front of
us, supports our long-range vision for this intersection, as
opposed to leaving it alone and waiting for the State to improve
the road? Because here's what I'm worried about, I know we
need more industrial in this county but not at the gateway to
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just a second. I think the piece in
here, 84 is a state road.
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can declare a moratorium on a
state road, and they're going to say, so what?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. In other words, the issue
before the court of county commissioners at that time, in fact
repeatedly, has been, do we want to impose a ludicrous impact
on this community and the development of that particular area of
any type based on inaction action by the state FDOT, and the
answer was repeatedly no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
development in the area?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
MR. LITSINGER:
Why is it ludicrous to stop
Exactly.
Because quite frankly as our concurrency
Page 207
December 12, 2000
ordinances and regulations are written in an area of significant
influence around that area, which would be a no building permits,
would be two miles on each end and two miles on either side.
And I can tell you that that would have been inclusive of lot of
the development, both residential and commercial that has taken
place in the last four or five years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would that be ludicrous if
it's a failing road?
MR. LITSINGER.' Well, it's philosophical but at the time, the
Board of County Commissioners felt that it would be a ludicrous
result.
MR. OLLIFF'- I don't know that they said that. They chose
not to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know if we could say
ludicrous.
MR. OLLIFF: I never heard the board say that but I will tell
you that they chose not to and decided that was a policy
constrained road and allowed for the board to continue to review
and approve developments along that one-quarter mile corridor
even though they knew its level of service was below standards.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There were already other PUDs
approved in that area, right, that are also coming out onto that
road?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me hear from Norman Feder, and
maybe he can help answer this because it's a cooperative thing
with FDOT to get the 84 piece in place. I think that's where we
need to be going.
MR. FEDER: First of all, again, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. I'm not going to speak to the
specific item. I haven't reviewed it. Dawn Wolff of my staff has,
so I'm only going to address one specific item, that particularly
from my past experience as part of DOT, I can respond to, as
well as my days in Tallahassee with Community Affairs when I
was in the Governor's office.
The fact of the matter is the issue of moratorium has
nothing to do with whether or not it's a state road. All you have
to do is look across the border to Lee County who is now going
into a variance agreement with DCA and the Department of
Transportation because DCA called into question the fact that
the level of service at 1-75 is not being met. So it doesn't have to
Page 208
December 12, 2000
be that it is a local road because the argument is that the
impacts to that road are the development that is permitted, not
necessarily the road itself.
So I don't think we can necessarily take the position
however you characterize it that because it's a state route and if
it has not been widened that we can continue development on it
even where we run into problems. Now, having said that --
having said that we need to encourage the Florida DOT to
improve that route, and as you well know, the MPO has that as
their top priority.
There is project development environment underway. There
is the design phase programmed, but the right-of-way was not
added into the new 50 year because they didn't add any projects
in the work program this cycle. So, therefore, you have neither
right-of-way, nor construction in their work program. Once they
get it in, the county can look at advancement of reimbursement,
but if we don't wait for them to do it and we do it, we reduce our
needs and, therefore, our future funding from the state.
We can build parallel facilities to try and relieve, but that's
the major thing that we can focus on but we cannot ignore its
level of service, nor infer that moratorium or the word I don't
want to use -- I think I just said it -- that any of those sanction
issues can't come to us because the state didn't improve it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to ask for the fourth
time and it's not Mr. Weigel's fault that he hasn't answered this
question because he has been interrupted, but my question is: If
the policy has been in place and we have recognized it today as
the policy that we don't like, that we're going to have a policy
constrained road or whatever the words are, can we change that
today?
MR. WEIGEL-- No, you can't change it today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought. So all of
this is academic, this discussion. I mean, you're right, you're
right, you're right. We have to bring this up, and we've got to look
at it. In our transportation workshop, along with the 5 percent
rule, we need to change this policy constrained road baloney --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sooner than later.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- But we can't do it today on this
project. We can't do it the lawyer says, so move on. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Mr. Bellows, anything else
Page 209
December 12, 2000
for us?
MR. BELLOWS: I would just like to make a point of
clarification on the executive summary, the mention that the
interchange master plan was going to the Board of County
Commissioners on November 28th. Of course, that was
continued to the January 9th meeting, and that this petition is
fully consistent with the spirit of the interchange master plan. I
would like to point out that the petitioner is Marshakowski with
the contract purchaser, who is Benderson on the executive
summary.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. The pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Closed to public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Closed to public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve it.
Dawn, you have absolutely raised important issues that we've
got to resolve, but we can't fix them today on the backs of this
petitioner. It's not fair. I'll make a move to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Discussion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All the questions. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-1.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That takes us to B as in boy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When is our transportation
workshop, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: I believe it's scheduled for March, the first
week of March.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You might want to rearrange the
schedule.
MR. OLLIFF: You have even more critical items than that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
Item #12Cl
ORDINANCE 2000-90, AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE BY
ADDING A PROVISION FOR AN EXEMPTION FOR ADULT-ONLY
COMMUNITIES - ADOPTED
Page 210
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think I missed a couple of items here,
Mr. Manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 12C.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 12C-1 and 2. So I'm just having a
whole bunch of fun here. Let's go back to C-1. That's to adopt
an ordinance to amend the Collier County educational facilities
system impact fee ordinance by adding provisions for the
exemption for adult only communities. Do we have any speakers
on that?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, can I clarify with
our legal staff? Can we impose this? I understand it went
through the court system, and I understand that there is a
connection with ALF and adult living communities being that
they're asking for services that it is an impact on our
transportation system and OUR school system for one thing. It's
an indirect impact on the school system. I guess that is the
question.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the -- they may have some additional
comments, but the amendment before you today is nothing more
than to codify in our ordinance and recognize two things. One,
that there has been a practice in the past under our ordinance to
not impose the school impact fees for these adult congregate
living facilities, and the Volusia County case that came out
earlier this year indicated that that was an absolutely correct
application.
The standards are, in fact, driven by the case law, in which
there are restrictions, and you might call it general impossibility
for the facility to be a living residential facility for school age
children. So we're really putting just into place here -- we call it
a clarification, but it also is emblematic of the case law that
came out earlier this year, which provides rather strictly that
those congregate -- adult congregate living facilities -- that by
their creation approval by the county and/or deed restrictions
absolutely don't allow school age children to reside there. You
can have a visitor, like a grandchild or something like that.
The idea of residential living is not provided for school age
children. Therefore, there's no school impact, and, therefore,
inappropriate to exact a fee from them for that impact
Page 211
December 12, 2000
particularly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First of all, you said adult
congregate living facilities, ACLFs. Do you mean adult only
communities or ACLFs.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Both.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Both.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then assisted living as well.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. It was an adult only. The case in point
was -- it was an adult only. The other one, the case was adult
only also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, that's right. Adult only.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, all of the mobile
home parks in East Naples, for instance, and we've got --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're all adult, over 55 living
facilities. None of them would have to pay an impact fee; is that
correct?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You people want to jump in on that;
don't you?
MS. ASHTON: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. It would depend
on whether there are restrictions that would specify that adults
only, no children except for temporary visits, are allowed, and
the reason is educational facilities impact fees are charged
against residential development with the adult congregate living
facilities as Mr. Weigel explained. There are people who require
assistance and would not in any situation have a child living with
them. Therefore, they would have no impact on the system, and
it is illegal to charge an impact fee against someone who has no
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't that illegal? Even though
you're like 84 years old and you don't move into a facility
because you love to hear little children, even though you've
never had any of your own, but now you have to pay the impact
fee because you have not chosen to live in an adult only?
MS. ASHTON: Yeah, that's correct. If you lived in a single
family dwelling, it's likely that sometime in the future, your house
will be sold to somebody else who will have an impact on the
system.
Page 212
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words -- like if Pelican
Bay, for instance, Pelican Bay is loaded with retired people, but
you all have to pay impact fees.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you choose to live in an adult only
community, then you don't have to?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, let me add a lore to that. Remember that
the impact fee is a one-time cost to the structure developed on
that piece of property. So it's for the person moving in, and it's
based upon with the adult congregate living facilities or other
very restricted communities, is that if there is absolutely an
inability for residential use for the family situation with children,
there is no -- there is no school impact, and you have to have that
nexus of an impact before you can charge a connection, before
you can charge that fee.
Remember though just moving into a Bentley Village or
some other place, there is no impact fee. It's only upon the
initial -- it's paid upon the initial construction where the building
permit issues. It's not a subsequent cost. So people moving into
mobile homes and things of that nature, there may be rules that
don't allow children, families with children to go there, but that
has nothing to do with the impact fee that's based upon initial
construction.
And as Ms. Ashton indicated, as far as single family homes
or other higher density situations, multi-family, the idea is that
ownership changes over time, and so the connection of our
ordinance is based upon the initial impact and the initial type of
use, which is allowed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING Mr. Chairman, now that I
understand the ordinance, that it is illegal for us to collect the
impacts on a 55 or older community, I'm ready to make a motion
if you so accept it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Motion to approve amending the
I'll second it.
Comments.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a problem with this whole
process. I think we're jumping the gun on it. Basically, you need
a force of people out there to support these communities, and
Page 213
December 12, 2000
those people need these other amenities. If we find somebody
that has no use to use the roads, are we going to remove the
impact fee from them if they're impaired in some way?
This is opening a can of worms. Now, I realize the Supreme
Court of Florid was the one that had this before them and found
in favor of the people that are -- have carried it on to our
neighborhood now, but if I might, if my recollection is correct,
the Florida Supreme Court hasn't had the best track record
lately.
I think we need to seriously take a look at this, and maybe
hold off in making a decision. Maybe we could take it to our
organization of the Florida communities and see if they might be
able to do something with us together to be able to change this
ruling at some level. I don't know if we could afford to do it
ourselves.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you telling us we have to
accept it, period. We have no choice?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what I'm telling you is, is that even if you
don't have it in the ordinance, the practice has been by the
county not to collect it, and that has followed in fact and has
been verified by the case law that came through this year to the
high court.
However, remember, every one pays for schools through
property taxes, whether you have children or not. But this is the
impact based upon the structure that is created on a new
structure, and it has to have a very close connection to the
impact that is caused on infrastructure, whether it"s roads or
parks or libraries or sheriff or the whole panoply of taxes that we
have -- of fees that we have in place for those things.
It's for building infrastructure and if old people in new
housing do not themselves create a need for schools, because
they're not going to grade school, et cetera, then it"s improper to
charge them for the infrastructure that you've got to build for the
other families that do have kids.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to comment then. I
understand what you're saying, but the old people that move into
my neighborhood don't have a use for the school either, Number
1. Number 2, they might because they are using this home as a
part-time residence be paying their taxes up north, so they're not
paying any school taxes down here, second. Thirdly, when it
Page 214
December 12, 2000
comes to census, where do they say they live, well, they say they
live up north because they need the money up there.
So how many times have we been reading that we're crying
for people to use this as their domicile on the census and they
say well, they only live here six months a year. They don't want
to do that. They want the money to go back up to Wisconsin.
So, you know, I think we missed the boat here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to tell you why. I'm going to
move for approval and comply with Florida law and prevent
lawsuits in Collier County. We can argue this all night. That's
where I am, and that's why I second the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have a question of staff.
Mr. Weigel, do we monitor these things? Are there other
Supreme Court or other controlling authority decisions that
would make us need to look at our impact fees? This seemed to
come out of the blue. That part surprised me. If this was a
decision when, back in May or something, how do we come to be
doing this today?
MS. ASHTON: If I could respond. I wrote an opinion in 1993
not to collect impact fees for adult congregate living facilities for
educational facilities impact fees. The reason is, the properties
are required to pay their fair share for the benefit derived. If
you've got a legal impossibility, as Mr. Weigel previously stated,
there's no benefit. And based on the case law, it was my
analysis that we would be challenged successfully for collecting
a fee or attempting to collect a fee from somebody who had no
impact.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was -- you gave us
that opinion appropriately I think in 1993, and we have been
operating that way. How do we come to be amending the
ordinance in 2000, seven years later?
MR. OLLIFF: Because I found out about it.
MS. ASHTON: ¥eah, the question was raised to me whether
we should amend the ordinance, and in my opinion -- we have a
copy of the opinion if you'd like to read it -- that if it was of
administrative assistance to have the exemption, then by all
means go ahead and include it in the ordinance. But in my
opinion, it's not required that it be there because you can't
collect something you're not legally required -- not legally able to
collect in the first place.
Page 215
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What you're telling us we can
vote for this, we can vote against this, we cannot vote on this.
There aren't going to be impact fees collected for adult only
facilities that are identified in certain ways, whether by deed
restrictions or someway that runs with the land so that it's
permanent?
MR. OLLIFF: No. What we're telling you is that in practice,
the staff has not collected impact fees for schools for adult
congregate living facilities or adult only developments deed
restricted. We've done that at the recommendation of the
County attorney's Office based on court cases. The ordinance
hasn't been amended, like it should have been. This was brought
to our attention as part of this entire impact fee. Look, if the
board tells us to go start collecting the impact fees on ACLFs
and on adult deed restricted communities, we can do that. Your
county attorney is telling you he doesn't believe that legally we
have a very good basis for doing that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: ACI. F, when you say ACLF, do you
mean like an adult congregate living facility where the people
are -- have a health care problem and they are now admitted to
that?
MR. OLLIFF: Any place where there is a restriction in terms
of the residency of that facility or that community that is age
restricted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, just age restricted. Because
anybody can go into an ACLF. Okay. If they're handicapped or
whatever, it doesn't make any difference. Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are we ready to vote?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last question. Would I be illegal if I
-- if I don't agree with this, and I don't because I think there's a
lot of people being discriminated against, am I illegal for voting
against it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No.
MR. WEIGEL: The board makes a collective vote, so you can
be side of that. It doesn't mean that you're doing something
illegal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't want to do anything illegal,
but I really don't believe in this.
MR. WEIGEL'. Well, okay. We've advised you what we think
is legal here, but it's up to a collective vote of the board.
Page 216
December 12, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: We're not saying that legally we agree or
disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of
Florida. We're just telling you what their decision was, and that
then becomes case law that then becomes --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Supreme Court for Volusia County
or something?
MR. OLLIFF: State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Covers everything. Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Coletta, I think that I can
respond so that you can understand that impact fees are
collected from that person that goes to the 55 or older
community to do their vacuuming or clean a pool or something
like that. It's that person who pays the impact fees. That person
being a pool cleaner, his home that he built, he pays an impact
fee because his children are going to the school.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In the same light, you might
take a look at some of these people. We've had people that don't
use the landfill. They recycle their own garbage in the bag,
recycle all the items. So we should exempt them in the same
nature from paying land fill fees. We could go on to a whole
bunch of different other items as we go down through the list
there to exempt everyone and make everyone special use or
special exemptions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All call the question and get this thing
up or down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to say this: This past
Saturday the Florida Supreme court ordered me to show up and
start counting a bunch of ballots. I thought it was a horrible
idea. I didn't want to do it, but know that I am subject to the
authority of the Florida Supreme Court, I find myself in that same
position here today. I'm going to support the motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-2.
Page 217
December 12, 2000
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 2000-91, AMENDING ORDINANCE 2000-19,
RESCINDING THE TEMPORARY SURCHARGE AND INCREASE THE
TAXICAB RATES - ADOPTED
Item C2, Amend ordinance Number 200-019, vehicle for hire
ordinance to rescind the temporary surcharge, increase the
taxicab rates. New commissioners, we did put a surcharge on
some time ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it was a bad idea. It didn't
work right, and this is the right way to do it and I support it and
move approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do, too.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you've got three registered
speakers.
MS. ARNOLD: We've got a question of the-- for the record --
I'm sorry -- Michelle Arnold, the placement director. There is a
question that was raised by one of the speakers. Let me have
him raise it himself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: If we can get right to the speakers. There's
three speakers. It's Nick Whitney followed by Russ Bazely who
will be followed by Jack Bridenthal.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you come up here, I think the
support of the board is to approve to rescind the temporary
surcharge and increase the taxicab rates. If you're with us on
that and you want to talk us out of it, that's fine.
MR. WHITNEY: Good evening. I'm Nick Whitney I'm director
of Checkered Cab of Collier County. Back in April when you did
approve the emergency surcharge -- and we did appreciate that --
it did help put a Band-Aid on surgery. It was a good start while
staff reviewed the reports, the information that we sent into Mr.
Blue Wallace, the utility franchises. I believe he did an excellent
job in reviewing all of the data we sent him.
He did make a recommendation to the November vehicle
advisory committee, which I think was a very fair report and rate
increase that we could live with. The advisory committee did
'recommend a different rate. Again, I believe that's -- it really is
not a fair rate at this time. We haven't had a rate increase since
Page 218
December 12, 2000
1992. I'm sure the commission wouldn't try to run the county
budget in 2000 under the 1992 budget. It just wouldn't work. I
would appreciate the support of the commission.
If you would review, I'm sure you have seen Mr. Wallace's
report of the $2.65 drop charge and 35 cents every two-tenths
mile. That I could live with. I believe it would be fair for the
drivers, as well as the passengers. It is still well below the rates
of our neighbors up in Lee County. That the drop rate up there is
3.05. I believe the 2.65 is a fair rate for the company, for us to
operate on and, as well, a fair rate for the passengers. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The next speaker is Russ Bazely
followed by Jack Bridenthal.
MR. BAZELY: For the record, my name is Russ Bazely. I
served on this county -- on the public vehicle advisory board back
in the second revision of this ordinance back in 1987, I believe.
The ordinance itself that governs this was created, I believe, in
1985 in an emergency because the city got out of the regulation
of taxis and for hire vehicles.
The trust of the ordinance back then -- I think Mr. Olliff was
part of the staff doing it. Bruce Anderson was involved. Don
Pickworth was involved. The whole trust was to try to protect
the public, so that there would be vehicles for hire available
during off-season times, and it was going the direction of a
franchise. What you have is a -- is not a franchise situation. You
have a totally open market. Anyone who comes into this
marketplace and says, I want to be in the taxi business can go
be in the taxi business once they go through the permitting
process. All other municipalities that regulate taxi rates do so
on the basis of a franchise or medallion for some limiting factor.
That's not here. So back when I asked for the surcharge, we
asked for it to not be a meter rate change. What we asked for
was a change -- was a sticker that would notify the public of the
fuel situation change and an additional cost so that we could
provide the service. Instead, we were mandated to do a meter
rate change, which cost, in essence, about $200 per car. It's not
a simple thing. There is no license in Collier County to do it. You
either go to Fort Myers or Miami. We go all through all of that
expense. We do it, and then we're confronted with a situation
that we're treated like a franchise on one hand but not on the
Page 219
December 12, 2000
other hand. I suggest to you -- I've got some rate comparisons I'd
like to give you. These are current rates. You'll notice that
Marco Island is listed as unmetered, unregulated. The folks that
operate taxis in Marco Island elected a few years ago to go to
charter service vehicles -- I'm sorry -- charter service vehicles
are sedans that don't say taxi on them. If you want to take the
top plate off the taxi and take your letters off the side, you can
run around, and you can charge whatever you want to charge. I
sat down at the Marco Marriott on Sunday and watched these
folks provide the service all day long, and they're providing a
needed service. There doesn't seem to be a problem. I
personally feel that taxis that are clearly identified and permitted
is the safest way to do it. If we're not franchised, we are not
limited. There's no medallions. Why not let the public decide
what the rate should be? Let us compete on price and service.
There is a requirement by the State Department of Agriculture
that the rates be posted on the vehicles so that we could
respond to the market, rather than tie up your valuable time. Mr.
Wallace has spent a zillion hours on this thing. I think it's time
for the county to get out of the regulation business. The 2.15
would probably do that. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: The last speaker is Mr. Bridenthal.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. I'm
Jack Bridenthal, USA Taxi. Russ and Nick have pretty much said
what I wanted to say, except I understand when this ordinance
was first put in and the rates set, that the county manager now
was pretty active in getting it set. And I'd like to know why and
by what authority they really put it together. As Russ said, most
counties that don't have franchises aren't regulated. It's not
county subsidized. It's not county money. We're not taking from
the county. Can you give me a thought on that? I'm not being
facetious. I have only been in the cab business six years, so I
wasn't here.
MR. OLLIFF: It's late and I'm old, but if I remember, we --
just like Mr. Bazely said, I think the city had previously regulated
because of the -- their relationship with the airport. And the
city, I believe, had gotten out of the business of regulating taxis,
and we started getting a number of public complaints about both
the rate regulation issues and just the way it was being managed
at the airport at the time.
Page 220
December 12, 2000
The county ended up putting together a committee. As I
recall, Russ, they included a number of people in the industry,
and there were a number of people who, just as Mr. Bazely
indicated, wanted to go towards a more limited number type
system. Most communities will call it a medallion type system
where you have a limited number of taxis that you feel your
community can support, and then you regulate them that way.
And it prevents people from out of town -- from coming in, you
know, sort of tonight and being gone three weeks from now and
then providing some unfair or difficult competition and difficult
issues for us to try and regulate.
But as I recall, when that ordinance got presented to the
board, the board didn't want to go to a limiting route. It wanted
to let the market kind of dictate and control the system a little
bit and sort of try and find a happy medium. So we ended up with
the type of ordinance that we do, where we were actually trying
to regulate by rate and not by numbers.
Former lady: And the rate only applies to the taxi cabs, and
there are other services that are provided like charter services,
limousine services, that are market driven. They set their own
rates and those types of things.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: Okay. I can buy a hamburger in Collier
County from 39 cents to $10. Why didn't you regulate them?
MR. OLLIFF: I'm not going to tell you, you know, that today
that's still the right decision, but that's the ordinance we're
currently functioning under.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: Go the other way about the franchise
system, anyplace that's regulated, bigger cities, it's like a liquor
license. You can have what you have right now, they shut off,
and as the population grows, they have like a lottery, where one
person can get in and get the next license. That would be the
right way to go, especially if it's regulated.
Like Russ said, Lou Wallace spent hours, hundreds of hours,
working this survey out and getting it all set up with what it
should be, and then the advisory committee disregarded
everything he said and just pulled a figure out of the sky. His
work computerized, graphed, charted. He said 23 percent. When
the committee first started talking about it, they said 23 percent.
By the time they worked it all around, they got it down to below
18, which amounts to about $3600 a year, and we just found out
Page 221
December 12, 2000
our insurance is going way up again this year. I also agree. I
would have ten cars painted, and the ordinance says they can be
advertised on their luggage carrying area.
So all of mine would just be -- lettering would move to the
back fenders and trunk lid. Take the meters out and charge
whatever I wanted, like these plain car guys do. They have no
limit on what they can charge. We take the top light off, take the
meter out, there is no limit. I can charge $5 a mile if the
competition will bear it, but it won't.
You know, if you want to rent a tent for $200, and the next
guy wants 100, you either reduce your rate or you go out of
business. This is -- my thoughts on free enterprise should be just
that. Let the competition rule the rates. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Further discussion? Any questions of
Michelle Arnold? Any comments by Michelle Arnold?
MS. ARNOLD: I just want to clarify one point. The board did
initially -- the PDAC did initially recommended 23 percent across
the board, but when the -- a member of the audience voiced that
the rate that they were adopting would not be compatible with
the metered rates, they changed their recommendation. And the
recommendation that they changed to to comply with the meters
is what is before you today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So they don't have to do a meter
change, is that --
MS. ARNOLD: No, they will, but the meters will only work
out to the 5 percent or the 10 percent, and the 23 percent,
according to our calculations would come up with odd numbers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I see.
MS. ARNOLD: So that's why the board made that change.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- I think I made the motion for
approval, and I would like to amend it to say that it's effective for
one year. And that during that year, the staff come back with a
proposal as to whether or not we need to be in the taxi
regulation business, and if so, what rates are appropriate and
what we ought to be doing because I have the same fundamental
concern. I don't know why we're in the business of regulating
this particular industry, but I move approval for one year with
Page 222
December 12, 2000
that stipulation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. I'll tell you why,
too. It's going to change within one year, especially when the
bus system gets out there, and it's going to be a much more
competitive market.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: Pardon me. This hasn't closed yet. What
can you recommend at this --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's closed, sir. I can't let you back to
the mike.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're recommending the $2.157
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where the executive summary
is, right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm recommending to staff, I have
moved to the staff recommendation.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: The staff recommendation?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: That is $2.75.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're closed to public comment.
MR. ARNOLD: The recommendation on the executive
summary was 2.15 and 30 cents.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: Not the staff's recommendation. It was
2.65.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners amend this ordinance to rescind the
temporary $2 and increase the minimum rates of the taxi cab to
2.15 for the first one-tenth of a mile and 35 cents for each
two-tenths of a mile thereafter. That's the recommendation, and
that's the motion as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, with the one-year
stipulation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I seconded.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And along with that, you're asking the
staff to come back within a year to ask whether or not we should
be in the regulation business.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if so, at what level just to
give us a general -- professionally give us a recommendation a
year from now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second to that, correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Page 223
December 12, 2000
Opposed by the same sign. There being none, motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before we go on, I made
promise before, and I would like to have evening meetings but I
never quite figured it would be this way. Is there a possibility we
might be able to consider at some point in time going to weekly
meetings until we get this backlog caught up?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can bring that up under
commissioner comments. We can entertain that, and I will give
you the reasons why I think this is a temporary situation and not
one that you're going to be faced with on a regular basis.
Item #13A1 - Continued to January 9, 2001
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 2000-468, RE PETITION CU-2000-15, JUDITH A.
INNES REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE "24" OF THE "A"
RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR A HORSE
STABLE ON LESS THAN 20 ACRES OF LAND FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 262 AND 266 ROSE APPLE LANE, CONSISTING OF
4+/- ACRES - ADOPTED
So we need to move to Item 13A(2).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happened to urban --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A-1 is being continued to 90 -- the first
meeting in January.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wonderful. 1382 is the first stable;
isn't it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Let's see. This item requires
that all participants be sworn.
(Whereupon, the participants were sworn.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no disclosure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have no disclosure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosure.
COMMISSIONER COL. ETTA: None.
COMMISSIONER FIALA-' I got a letter though. I got a letter
from somebody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
Page 224
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, okay. We've got letters, faxes,
E-mails. I may have some.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do I have one?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have one, something up here. Yes, I
have a letter, E-mail, phone calls. A couple of horses came in and
talked to me. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Ed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Ed.
MR. REISCHL: Good evening Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
Planning Services. This is a request for a horse stable on than
the required 20 acres of land located as you can see on the
visualizer. Here is Collier Boulevard, Sabal Palm Road, and you
see Rose Apple Lane is a small street going north of Sabal Palm
Road. You can see the specific location in blue. The stable has
been in operation for approximately ten years, and the petitioner
would like to legitimize the operation. There was a code change
in 1999 that put in that 20 acre provision. We have received a
complaint from the neighbor to the north, and I believe that's the
letter you were referring to. I received a letter prior to the
planning commission meeting, and that was included in your
agenda packet. And I received this morning a letter that was
forwarded to Commissioner Carter, which was very similar to the
one that I received before the planning commission. There were
some -- I don't know if I should call them allegations, but some
statements in there about smell and dust and things like that.
Staff believes that those are inherent to the agricultural zoning
district where this -- all of these parcels are. The closest
nonagricultural is here to the south which is the Winding Cypress
PUD. I believe that's over 800 feet to the south. This is the
urban area, and at some time in the future, this parcel, and all of
the other parcels around here, could be rezoned to a residential
use. However, right now all of the surrounding parcels are
agricultural in nature. I know it's late. I have some photos if you
want me to put the photographs up on the visualizer to show the
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it may be helpful. I just want to
quickly -- a couple of things I had on my list. It is two acres, not
four acres as stated in the application, correct? MR. REISCHL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know why we had four acres in
Page 225
December 12, 2000
the application. That bothered me. How long has this operation
operated illegally as I'm understanding?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not illegal. We passed a new
ordinance, and it was grandfathered in and they're trying to make
themselves not be nonconforming.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To make themselves
grandfathered in forever instead of just being a concurrent
nonconforming issue.
MR. REISCHL: It would be a legal, nonconforming use
because they were in operation prior to. Ms. Ennis wants to
legitimize it and have the conditional use status.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but that's the wrong
word, "legitimize it." That's not really the correct word because
it's a legitimate use.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Update.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What they want to do is right
now if a hurricane blows it away, they can't rebuild it because
they're illegal nonconforming but they can't reinstate if
something happens to it. They want to make it so it's forever
and ever grandfathered in by getting this specific --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did they sell it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Approval, this variance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can they sell the business
intact?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we approve this, they'll be able
to. If we don't approve this, I doubt -- Mr. Weigel, could they sell
the business and it run with the land? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, they can.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. The nonconformity
would run with the land.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only other question I've got
is, if we don't approve it, they can continue operations until that
point in time, right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many horses are allowed per
acre?
MR. REISCHL: In the agricultural zoning district on a
20-acre parcel, there is no restriction on it.
Page 226
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about on a two-acre parcel?
MR. REISCHL'. The code says that you are allowed two
horses per acre. This is -- I suppose another reason why they're
coming forward with a conditional use, but, again, this was in
operation prior to that code change in 1999. The current code
says that you are allowed two horses per acre for private use.
However, because this was existing prior to 1999 -- I'm not an
attorney, but I don't believe that restriction applies.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only real effect is this, is
that the nonconforming status becomes a conforming status,
and, therefore, it lasts forever instead if a hurricane blows it
away.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay, then, one other
question. In the letter that I got here, obviously I wasn't there,
but they were talking about horses that were buried, and there is
a very high water table there. And when it rains pretty hard, the
horses -- the dead horse has moved up to the top, and it smelled
awfully. Twice that happened. Apparently, you were called one
of the times or the Health Department was called one of the
times. How do we -- how do we prevent that from happening
again?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The light bill.
MR. REISCHL: I can let Mr. Yovanovich go into more detail
on that, but I believe what was told to me was that the Health
Department found no violation, but that was secondhand
information.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you bury horses there, Rich?
MR. YOVANOVICH'. For the record, Commissioners, Rich
Yovanovich. The answer is yes, and I provided to Mr. Olliff a
copy. We got a copy of the letter, and we can refute everything
that's said in the letter, including the Health Department and
Code Enforcement has been out there. The horse was properly
buried. The horse died, and it had to be buried. It was buried
probably. I think what's quite telling is that Mr. Reid -- frankly,
I'm a little -- I'm a little embarrassed that my client, Mrs. Ennis,
who makes her living off of her land, and she provides horse
riding lessons and allows horses to be stabled there and has
been there since 1990 is even here.
It's a neighbor dispute, and what we're here to do is to go
ahead and get the conditional use to get the neighbor off of our
Page 227
December 12, 2000
back. It is a legal, nonconforming use, always has been. The
neighbor is not here to represent himself. He fires off letters that
are unsupported and we refute with independent testimony,
including the testimony of the truck driver who has been
repairing the road for many years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the horse never floated up to the
top?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what happened was is that Mrs.
Ennis is by herself. It's not easy to bury a horse right away. The
horse was buried the first day, and they came back the next day
to put more fill on top of the horse.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did it ever float up --
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for the second time?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
MR. OLLIFF: I did check with our Domestic Animal Services
Department. They did say that they were aware of that horse
burial, and that it was conducted according to the code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there public speakers on this
item?
MR. OLLIFF: There are three.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But they're all in favor of the petition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I were going to make a motion
to approve, might they, you know, consider waiving? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm dying to make one.
I don't know what the rest of the board will do, but I'm dying to
make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is only conditional use. They sell
this property in the future, it's over.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. It goes forever.
MR. OLLIFF: Initially, it goes with the land.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if they sell their property
right now, the nonconforming status runs with the land.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commission Carter, I've been on that
property. It is, as you can see from the pictures, immaculate.
Everything is done proper. There are 15 stalls for the 15 horses.
There are 14 there right now. It's never been an issue for any of
the other neighbors. This has been in operation for ten years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was another one of my
Page 228
December 12, 2000
questions. There are 14 horses on these two acres. Now with
this that we're approving, you say that normally there is two
horses per acre allowed. Does that then -- as we approve this or
not approve it, does that then make them to conform to the two
acres, two horses per acre.
MR. REISCHL: Let me clarify a little more. The code change
in 1999 that required 20 acres for commercial stabling, what this
is, also said we don't want to take away the right of
noncommercial horse owners to have horses on their land if they
have a legal nonconforming lot that is less than 20 acres. So we
said, let's allow them to continue to have horses, but we'll put a
limit on it and that limit was two per acre. However, Mrs. Ennis'
business and property was there since approximately 1990, I
believe.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct.
MR. REISCHL: So that she was in operation with this
number of stalls and the maximum of 15 stalls, so the maximum
of 15 horses since 1990 as a legal nonconforming use.
Therefore, the code change didn't apply to her with the limit, and
that's a limit, not for commercial, but for private horse ownership
on that land.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it healthy for a horse -- I mean, if
you have 15 horses on two acres, and I can see that she keeps a
nice property. Is it healthy for the horses to be cooped up?
Because somewhere on there she has to have a house, too, right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: She's also got areas where they
exercise. So it's not an issue. There's a letter from the vet, who
checks the horses, that the horses are in excellent condition. All
of that is, as I submitted to Mr. Olliff. So the horses are very well
taken care of. There are areas for them to exercise in addition
to the stall area. It is a professionally run stable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So at this point in time, I
understand that if we do nothing or if we disapprove this request,
that operations will still continue as always without any
changes. My biggest problem with this is that once we open up
to door on this, we're going to have to make an exception for
everybody.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Mr. Coletta, that's not true. By law,
the conditional use, you look at each individual case separately.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have to be fair for everyone.
Page 229
December 12, 2000
So if we make an exception here and allow a business entity to
go there with the population probably building up in that area,
this is saying it's going to be there for just about forever, no
matter what happens around it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not sure that's the case, but we
were there first, and there is also another stable right
immediately adjacent to us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, and by not approving it, you
still lose nothing. What would you lose?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what we do loose, we have a
neighbor frankly who is a pain, to put it nicely, and it's late so I'm
having trouble of nicer ways to say it. So we just want the use to
be allowed to be maintained in the even something happens to
destroy the business, a fire or something, she can build back
what she currently has. This is how she makes her living. She
wants to be able to assure herself she continues that ability to
earn a living from her property in case something as
Commissioner Mac'Kie gave as an example happens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if the straw caught on fire and
the stables burned down and we didn't approve it, she would only
be able to put two horses per acre out there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd have the come to you with another
conditional use application to go back in the commercial
business to do what I'm doing today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Does this party live and do business
here year-round.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we approve this, how does
that take care of your pain?
MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? Well, he can no longer
continue to allege what we're doing is illegal that's why we're
here. You're here hearing a neighbor dispute.
MR. OLI. IFF: The other difficulty with nonconforming use is
from a staff perspective is as this facility gross old and starts to
deteriorate they cannot replace things. They can't go in and
make major improvements to fix things, so the condition of this
property will probably get worse and worse because they're
going to want to maintain the use. They're going to want to
maintain that stable use, but they're not going to be able to keep
it up.
Page 230
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Or they have code enforcement
problems, et cetera, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm reading these things that you
just brought me, and I happen to know a lady. That's Marlee,
right? You wrote this letter, and you keep your horse there?
Were you one of the speakers, Marlee? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to beg for the public
speakers to be called because I think They would take less time
than we would take talking about whether or not to hear from
them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've exhausted myself.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm ready to move this item on the
agenda. I have a motion. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we don't have a closed
public hearing because we have three registered speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: They waived.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They waived.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, they did?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify -- did I close the
public hearing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to -- I have to finish reading
this letter because I'm reading Marlee's -- I'm sorry, but I have to
have something --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is this a social dialogue that you
would wish to have with her? Could we do this after the
commission meeting, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. I'm going to go along with
your word, Marlee, and trust you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. Motion
carried. Thank you.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 2000-469, RE PETITION CU-2000-14, D. WAYNE
ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES,
REPRESENTING JOSEPH E. TOWNSEND, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING
Page 231
December 12, 2000
CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR
EARTHMINING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON U.S. 41
APPROXIMATELY 3-1/2 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD,
CONSISTING OF 42.5+/- ACRES - ADOPTED
All right. That takes us to Item 3, which was 17FC20014
earth -- oh, we have to take a short break and let her change her
ribbon.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have to have everybody sworn,
please.
(Whereupon, the parties were sworn.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no disclosure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have no disclosure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I talked to the petitioner over
the phone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why can't this be on summary
agenda?
WITNESS: Unfortunately, the EAC voted 5-1 in
recommendation for approval. Since it was not unanimous
approval, it necessitated staff pulling it off the agenda. That is
the only issue before you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oops. It's a public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have speakers, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Other than the petitioner, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will you close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify -- discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have to wait for one
commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We can vote with four.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign. Motion carries.
MR. OLLIFF: On behalf of the staff, we wish you a happy
holiday.
Page 232
December 12, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, and we wish you and all of
the staff a happy holiday.
Item #15
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where are we?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're under communications.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You wanted to talk about the form.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Like I mentioned before,
you know, these evening meetings are a great idea but it's great
when they don't start at 9:00 o'clock in the morning. I kind of
hope that we'll give thought to us maybe having weekly meetings
to the point in time that we get this agenda under control.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, I believe the agenda --
it's not a question of the agenda not being under control, but we
had some issues here today that we normally wouldn't have had.
When it costs $100,000 to run a board meeting, I suggest with
stay with two. And when we get to workshops, I think you will
find this meeting will expedite itself because we'll all have a lot
more information to deal with. I think, Number 2, I would
suggest to all commissioners, if you have questions of staff on
consent or summary agenda items, that you go to them, you talk
with them, and they may be able to answer those questions
without having to pole them here.
Number 3, if we have dissident groups out there that are
involved in projects, the more we can work in the communities
through public meetings, you will find that this will speed up the
process. You are all doing a wonderful job. As you get with them
and get them to understand that we can get a lot more done than
having 20 people come up and speak at this podium, often people
saying the same thing over and over to us, it expedites meetings.
So I'm asking for some patience to get to the workshops and
then take a look and see, as we all get in sync and move a little
quicker here, that I don't think we'll be sitting here until 7:00
o'clock tonight. Today, unfortunately, cost us two hours because
of the one letter that went out to the community that created a
lot of fear.
Page 233
December 12, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Seeing none, staff, we all wish you a
very Merry Christmas and a happy birthday to Sue Filson who will
be 29 on Thursday. Adjourned.
Item #15A
COMMISSIONER CARTER APPOINTED AS SUBSTITUTE TO THE
CANVASSING BOARD
Discussed under Item #3A.
**** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner
Henning and carried unanimously, with the exception of Item
#16A14 (4/0 Commissioner Mac'Kie abstained), that the following
items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved
and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2000-451, RE PETITION VAC-00-016, VACATING
THE COUNTY'S INTEREST IN A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO
COLLIER COUNTY AS A 10' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT,
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 686, PAGES 1664
THROUGH 1665, AND ACCEPTING A 15' WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT AS A RELOCATION EASEMENT. LOCATED IN
SECTION 5~ TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2000-452, RE PETITION VAC-00-017, VACATING
THE COUNTY'S INTEREST IN A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO
COLLIER COUNTY AS A 15' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT,
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2678, PAGES 2563
THROUGH 2565. LOCATED IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST
Page 234
December 12, 2000
Item #16A3 - Moved to Item #8A2
Item #16A4
BID #00-3154, HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION
CONTRACT - AWARDED TO USL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $133,804
Item #16A5
AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT AN ARTIFICIAL REEF GRANT FROM
THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
- IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000
Item #16A6
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.770, "JIM WEEKS
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION, DESOTO BOULEVARD, U67 TR 147",
LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28
EAST: BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH BY VACANT LAND
ZONED ESTATES, ON THE WEST BY DESOTO BOULEVARD, AND
ON THE EAST BY VACANT LAND ZONED AGRICULTURAL
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT WITH MEDIAONE ENTERPRISES
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2000-453, TRANSFERRING CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE FROM MEDIAONE ENTERPRISES, INC., TO COMCAST
CABLEVISION OF THE SOUTH, INC.
Item #16A9
JOINT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES AND THE
SCHOOL BOARD REGARDING THE COUNTY'S, CITY'S, AND
SCHOOL BOARD'S RESPECTIVE USE OF
Page 235
December 12, 2000
PUBLIC/EDUCATIONAL/GOVERNMENT (PEG) PROGRAMMING
WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS
OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A10
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE UTILITY AND FRANCHISE
REGULATION DEPARTMENT TO AUTHORIZE OUTSIDE SPECIAL
LEGAL COUNSEL WITH LEIBOWITZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A., TO
LOBBY FOR AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA'S COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT
Item #16A11
RESOLUTION 2000-454, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST PHASE III, UNIT ONE"
AND RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A12
FINAL PLAT OF "MONTREUX AT FIDDLER'S CREEK" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A13
FINAL PLAT OF "SATURNIA LAKES PLAT ONE"-WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A14
FINAL PLAT OF "INDIGO LAKES UNIT FOUR'' - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A15
Page 236
December 12, 2000
FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA LAKES"-WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A16
FINAL PLAT OF "MUSTANG ISLAND"-WITH CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY
AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2000-455, ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES, AND
FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION PERMITS ESTABLISHED AND
ADOPTED BY THE INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS TO APPLY TO
DEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS
Item #16B1
RESOLUTIONS 2000-456 AND 2000-457 AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF A STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR HIGHWAY
SWEEPING IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,716.72 AND FOR HIGHWAY
MOWING IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,168.00, RESPECTIVELY
Item #16B2 - Deleted
Item #16B3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO THE BAYSHORE
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT BEAUTIFICATION FUND
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
Item #16B4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ADEQUATELY FUND
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION, RECOGNIZE
UNANTICIPATED REVENUE AND FUND THE MOVE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION, ENGINEERING AND
Page 237
December 12, 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENTS
Item #16Cl
DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
ADMINISTRATOR TO AUTHORIZE DOWNWARD MODIFICATIONS
OF THE TAKE OR PAY PROVISIONS IN THE RECLAIMED WATER
IRRIGATION CONTRACTS
Item #16C2
STANDARD COUNTY CONTRACT WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AS PER RFP #00-
3046 "SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND PROGRAM
ANALYSIS" - IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $90,000 FOR
INDIVIDUAL WORK ORDERS AND AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$500,000 FOR TOTAL YEARLY COMPENSATION FOR ALL WORK
ORDERS ISSUED
Item #16C3
FY-2001 FUNDS TO BE ENCUMBERED FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY UTILITY
RELOCATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH U.S. 41 ROAD WIDENING
FROM MYRTLE ROAD TO OLD U.S. 41, PROJECTS 70047, 70048
AND 73048
Item #16C4
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE; GREELY & HANSEN; HAZEN &
SAWYER; HOLE, MONTES & ASSOC., INC.; MALCOM PIRNIE; AND
METCALF & EDDY SELECTED AS UTILITY ENGINEERING FIRMS
FOR RFP 00-3119, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITY
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Item #16C5
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR DRIVEWAY STRUCTURAL REPAIRS
FOR THE MANDATORY TRASH COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
PROGRAM FOR DISTRICT I
Page 238
December 12, 2000
Item #16C6
CHANGE ORDER WITH PROJECT INTEGRATION, INC., FOR ODOR
SCRUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 5-MGD
EXPANSION PROJECT UNDER BID 99-2908 - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$250,020.07
Item #16C7- Deleted
Item #16C8
RFP #00-3129 FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN AUTOMATIC METER
READING SYSTEM FOR THE UTILITIES DIVISION - AWARDED TO
ABB WATER METERS~ INC.
Item #16C9
COUNTY MANAGER TO SIGN CONSENT ORDER CASE NO. 00-
0951-11-HW, RE COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT NORTH PLANT; PAYMENT TO BE MADE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $11,750 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR CIVIL PENALTIES; AND EXPENDITURES
AUTHORIZED TO OFFSET CIVIL PENALTIES VIA A
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $52,350
Item #16C10
WORK ORDER JEI-FT-01-01 TO JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.
FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES FOR
A 12" WATER MAIN ON EAST U.S. 41 FROM MANATEE ROAD TO
BOYNE SOUTH AND A 6" FORCE MAIN FROM PUMP STATION
3.17 TO BOYNE SOUTH - IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,840
Item #16C11
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
METCALF & EDDY, INC., FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
Page 239
December 12, 2000
WATER TREATMENT PLANT, CONTRACT 95-2323 - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $85,712
Item #16C12 - Moved to Item #8C1
Item #16C13
UTILITY EASEMENT CONVEYED FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL LINES,
FIBER OPTIC LINES, RAW WATER MAINS AND WELLS AS PART
OF THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER PLANT REVERSE
OSMOSIS EXPANSION PROJECT
Item #16D1
AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY
FAIR WHICH PROVIDES A TAX-EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER
LOAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO WINGS FOR THE
AGRICULTURAL PAVILION BY EXTENDING THE COMPLETION
DATE BY ONE YEAR
Item #16D2
WORK ORDER BSW-00-09 TO BARANY SCHMITT SUMMERS &
WEAVER, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
FOR THE DESIGN OF A SKATE PARK, PRO SHOP, COMMUNITY
ROOM, BAND SHELL, AND GAZEBO AT GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER ANNEX SITE - IN THE AMOUNT OF $89~850
Item #16D3
WORK ORDER ABB-FT-01-01 TO AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE,
INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE
SITE DESIGN AND PERMITTING FOR A SKATE PARK, PRO SHOP,
COMMUNITY ROOM , BAND SHELL, AND GAZEBO AT GOLDEN
GATE COMMUNITY CENTER AND ANNEX SITE - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $56~550
Page 240
December 12, 2000
Item #16D4- Moved to Item #8D1
Item #16D5
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DESIGN AND PERMITTING
ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HALDEMAN CREEK
RESTORATION PROJECT
Item #16D6
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR THE
MARCO ISLAND SEGMENTED BREAKWATER PROJECT - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $24~500
Item #16D7
AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIG MARCO AND CAPRI PASS INLET
MANAGEMENT PLAN - IN THE AMOUNT OF $134~680
Item #16E1
CREATION AND FUNDING OF A NEW POSITION TITLED
"WELLNESS COORDINATOR" WHICH WILL MANAGE THE
COUNT~"S CORPORATE WELLNESS PROGRAM
Item #16E2- Deleted
Item #16E3
CHANGE ORDER FOR LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE DISPOSAL AND REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
DISCOVERED DURING THE REPLACEMENT OF PIPING ON FOUR
UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6~607.82
Page 241
December 12, 2000
Item #16E4
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
RFP 98-2867 WITH AEC NATIONAL CORP. FOR DESIGN
SERVICES FOR THE NEW IMMOKALEE JAIL CENTER- IN THE
AMOUNT OF $108~904
Item #16F1
SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE STATE OF
FLORIDA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND
ASSISTANCE COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM TO FUND A
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SPECIAL
OPERATIONS UNIT
Item #16F2
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR
THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 81-75
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT - BUDGET AMENDMENT #01-045;
#01-047; #01-057
Item #1611
PAYMENT APPROVED TO ATTEND THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL'S ANNUAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND
TRUSTEES HOLIDAY CELEBRATION AT THE RITZ CARLTON ON
DECEMBER 13, 2000, WHICH SERVES A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
- $100 PER COMMISSIONER
Item #1612.
PAYMENT APPROVED TO ATTEND THE COLLIER BUILDING
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION INSTALLATION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS ON JANUARY 20, 2001, WHICH
SERVES A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - $80 PER COMMISSIONER
Page 242
December 12, 2000
Item #16J1
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER
Item #16J2
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 243
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
December 12, 2000
FOR BOARD ACTION:
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign Satisfaction of
Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos.: 85-1028-CFA, 85-1029-CFA,
RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Co
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:
1) October 25, 2000 through October 31, 2000
2) November 01, 2000 through November 07, 2000
3) November 08, 2000 through November 14, 2000
4) November 15, 2000 through November 21, 2000
Districts:
1) Collier Soil & Water Conservation District - Notice of meeting for December
6, 2000, Agenda for November 2, 2000 meeting and Minutes of August 2,
2000 meeting
Minutes:
1) Collier County Productivity Committee - Notice of meeting for November
28, 2000
2) City of Naples Airport Authority - Agenda for September 21, 2000 regular
meeting and Minutes of August 17 and September 12, 2000 regular meetings,
Minutes of Special Meeting of August 31, 2000 and September 13, 2000
Audit Committee meeting
3) Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for November 1, 2000 meeting
and Minutes of October 6, 2000 meeting
4) The Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force - Agenda for October 30, 2000
meeting and Minutes of October 18 and 30, 2000 meetings
H:Data/Format
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
11)
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for
November 9, 2000 and Minutes of October 13, 2000 meeting
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting - Agendas for October 25 and
November 15, 2000 meetings and Minutes of September 27 and October 25,
2000 meetings and Working Draft of "The Collier County Community
Character Plan, Greenspace Element"
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for November 16, 2000
meeting
The Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Notice of
November 20, 2000 meeting, Minutes of October 11, 2000 meeting and
Amended Minutes of September 13 and 27th, 2000 meetings
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for November 13, 2000 meeting
and Minutes of October 9, 2000 meeting
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Agenda for December 13,
2000 meeting and Minutes of October 25, 2000 meeting
Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for November 1, 2000
meeting and Minutes of October 4, 2000 meeting and Minutes of September
13, 2000 Pelican Bay Budget Hearing Board of County Commissioners
meeting
H:Data/Format
December 12, 2000
Item #16K1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $89,588,972.57 APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD AND EXPENDITURE BUDGETS FOR OPEN
PURCHASE ORDERS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 2000
Item #16L1
SETTLEMENT IN INGERSOLL v. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 98-
4274-CA, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COUNTY WOULD PAY
$45,000 AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE COUNTY WOULD BE
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
Item #16L2 - Moved to Item #9E
Item #16L3
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NOS.
41T AND 13-45 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY v.
JOHN B. FASSETT, TRUSTEE OF THE ANNE M. FASSETT TRUST
DATED 6/5/86~ ET AL.~ CASE NO. 99-3040-CA
Item #16L4 - Added
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCELS 201 AND 201T IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSEPH DELUCIA, ET AL.
(GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT)
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2000-83, RE PETITION PUD-2000-15, BRUCE
ANDERSON, ESQ., OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE AND
ANDERSON, AND GREG STUART, AICP, OF STUART &
ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING GREG EAGLE, TRUSTEE,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO
"PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS EDISON
VILLAGE PUD AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE
Page 244
December 12, 2000
INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND LELY
CU LTU RAL PARKWAY
Item #17B - Moved to Item #12B4
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2000-84, RE PETITION PUD-84-7(6), GEORGE L.
VARNADOE, OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE &
ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING 951 LAND HOLDINGS, LTD.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO
"PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED
RESIDENTIAL GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY AND FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE MARCO SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD,
LOCATED IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST (COMPANION TO DOA-2000-04)
Item #17D
DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2000-06/RESOLUTION 2000-458, RE DOA-
2000-04, GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP,
VARNADOE AND ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING 951 LAND
HOLDINGS, LTD., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MARCO
SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-3, AS AMENDED,
LOCATED IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST (COMPANION TO PUD-84-7(6))
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2000-85, RE PETITION R-2000-06, J. GARY BUTLER,
P.E., OF BUTLER ENGINEERING, INC., REPRESENTING MARIO
CURlALE OF SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT CO. INC., REQUESTING
A REZONE FROM ITS CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF "A"
RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "C-4" GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD
Page 245
December 12, 2000
Item #17F - Moved to Item #13A3
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2000-459, RE PETITION V-2000-22, KAY D.
SORENSEN OR MANUEL L. MAYO REQUESTING A 7.5 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD OF 7.5 FEET TO 0
FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6595 GLEN ARBOR WAY,
BEING A PORTION OF LOT 1, VINEYARDS ARBOR GLEN
Item #17H
RESOLUTION 2000-460, RE PETITION V-2000-29, SAMMY
HAMILTON, JR. REPRESENTING EVERGLADES CORNER, INC.
REQUESTING A 30-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 50-
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ESTABLISHED FOR AUTOMOBILE
SERVICE STATIONS TO 20 FEET FOR A GASOLINE SERVICE
STATION CANOPY REPLACEMENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 31990 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, AT THE CORNER OF TAMIAMI
TRAIL AND S.R. 29 APPROXIMATELY 23 MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)
Item #171
RESOLUTION 2000-461, RE PETITION VAC 00-018 TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S
INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A 20' WIDE BERM EASEMENT AND A
PORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN TRACT "C",
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "RIVIERA COLONY GOLF ESTATES-
TRACT MAP" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGES 104
THROUGH 108 AND LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 246
December 12, 2000
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNMENT BOARD(S} OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
Jame .Carter, Ph.D, ~hatrman
?'::~'~iD~WiGHT R. BROCK, CLERK
'%;, ~'~ .?/;~::/';;Th'ese minutes approved by the Board on ~~ ~/~/, as
presented v/ or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KELLEY BLECHA, HEATHER
CASASSA, DAWN MCCONNELL AND GERE RIVERA.
Page 247