BCC Minutes 02/12/2002 RFebruary 12, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 12, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:04 a.m. In
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: James Coletta
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
James Carter, Ph.D.
ALSO PRESENT:Tom Olliff, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
James Mudd, Deputy County Manager
(The proceedings commenced with Commissioner Carter not
present.)
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
February 12, 2002
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.
1
February 12, 2002
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. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Paul Jarrett, Naples Church of Christ
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. January 8, 2002 - Regular Meeting
C. January 9, 2002 - Special Meeting
D. January 15, 2002 - Workshop Meeting
E. January 16, 2002 - Workshop Meeting
F. January 22, 2002 - Regular Meeting
3. PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation to recognize the Veteran's Transportation Program. To be
accepted by Mr. James H. Elson, Director, Veteran's Transportation
Program.
Proclamation to recognize Florida Career and Technical Work. To be
accepted by Dr. Fred Tuttle and Dr. Dan White, Superintendent.
2
February 12, 2002
4. SERVICE AWARDS
Five-Year Attendees:
1)
2)
Marilyn McKay, Library
Darcy Waldron, Emergency Services Administration
Ten-Year Attendees:
Ronney Cox, Library
Fifteen-Year Attendees:
Mark Burtchin, Transportation
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Big Cypress Basin, Melanie the Manatee Award.
Be
Geographic Information System (GIS) Update. (Abe Skinner, Property
Appraiser)
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
A. Public Comments on General Topics
B. Public Petition Request by Jim Kramer to discuss towing bill.
This item to be heard in coniunction with Item 9 F: Public Petition
Request by Mike Carr to discuss redistricting.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ae
This item was continued from the January 8~ 2002 BCC Meeting. VA-
2001-AR-1166, Avi Baron, PLS, representing Montclair Fairway Estate
Building Corporation, requesting an after-the-fact variance of 2.3 feet from
the required 5 feet to 2.7 feet for property located on 797 Provincetown
Drive, further described as Lot 29, Montclair Park North, in Section 5,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
3
February 12, 2002
Be
VA-2001-AR- 1564, Bill Potter, of Potter Homes, Inc., representing Bill and
Kristi Grigsby, requesting a 6.5 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear
yard setback to 18.5 feet for property located at 390 Willett Avenue, further
described as Lot 8, Conners Vanderbilt Unit 2, Collier County, Florida.
Ce
Petition CU-2001-AR- 1255, Donald J. Murray of Communications
Development Services Inc., representing the Collier County Emergency
Medical Services, Inc., requesting conditional use 13 of the "E" Estates
Zoning District to allow for an essential service for a communication tower
for property located at 95 13th Street SW at the intersection of Golden Gate
Boulevard and 13th Street SW, in Section 8, Township 49 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
PUD-2000-22 William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Wayne
Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Pine Ridge
Redevelopment Group, requesting a rezone from "RSF-4" Residential Single
Family and "C-1" Professional Commercial District to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as Goodlette Comers PUD for the purpose of
permitting commercial, office and service land uses for property located on
the Southwest comer of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) and Goodlette-Frank
Road (C.R. 851), in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
B. This item has been deleted.
Co
Public Hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance establishing the Flow
Way Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section 190.005,
Florida Statutes.
This item was continued from the January 22~ 2002 BCC Meeting.
PUDA-2001-AR- 1494, Karen Bishop, of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing
Kenco Development Inc., requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD to be
known as the Richland PUD for the purpose of reducing the maximum
number of dwelling units from 650 to 400 and increasing the commercial
acreage from 21.8 acres to 23 acres for property located on the Southwest
comer of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 27,
Township 48 South, Range 46 East, Collier County, Florida.
4
February 12, 2002
me
An Ordinance amending the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County, Florida, amending Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulation,
Article VII, Housing Code for the Unincorporated Area of Collier County,
as Promulgated by Ordinance 89-6, as amended, amending Section 22-263,
compliance with housing standards, to increase minimum required space for
dwellings, and requiring smoke detectors, and adding Section 22-265,
establishing penalties; providing for the inclusion in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances; providing for penalties; providing for liberal construction,
providing for conflict and severability; and providing an effective date.
Fe
Adoption of an Ordinance to amend Chapter 74 of the County's Code of
Laws and Ordinances, (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance) to authorize after-the-fact applications for impact fee waivers not
to exceed $7,500 per development applicable only to specified not-for-profit,
Federal Income Tax entities that acquired its Collier County Building Permit
for the waiver eligible constriction between September 7, 2001 and October
13, 2001.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Discussion regarding amending the Community of Character Council
Ordinance. (Commissioner Coyle)
Be
Appointment of members to the Livingston Road Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Rural Lands Oversight Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
FJ
This item to be heard in coniunction with Item 6 C: Discussion
regarding resolution reaffirming County's position on Congressional
redistricting. (Commissioner Carter).
5
February 12, 2002
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
11.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing condemnation of right-of-way and/or
easements required for the construction of four-lane and six-lane
improvements to Goodlette-Frank Road between Pine Ridge Road and
Vanderbilt Beach Road, Capital Improvement Element No. 65 (Project No.
60134). (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Be
Adopt a Resolution authorizing condemnation of right-of-way and/or
easements required for the construction of a six-lane section of Livingston
Road between Pine Ridge Road and Immokalee Road, Capital Improvement
Element No. 58 (Project No. 62071). (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. FUTURE AGENDAS
15.
16.
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATION
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.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Endres
Subdivision".
2)
ST-2001-SR-1226, George L. Vamadoe, Esq., of Young,
VanAssenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing Barron
Collier Companies, requesting a Special Treatment Development
Fobrua~ '12, 2002
Permit in the A-MHO-ACSC/ST District for a "Sporting and
Recreational Camp" located approximately three quarters of a mile
West of S.R. 29 and approximately one mile South of Oil Well Road
(CR 858) in Sections 19 and 30, Township 48 South, Range 30 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Companion to CU-2001-AR- 1225)
3)
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No.
59.804 "Jim Weeks Commercial Excavation, Desoto Boulevard, U67
TR143", 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
agriculture. (This petition is a companion item to Conditional Use
2001-AR- 1620 being considered today).
4) Adopt Resolutions enforcing liens on properties for Code Violations.
5) Adopt Resolutions enforcing liens on properties for Code Violations.
6)
Approve Committee Selection of Firms for Contract Negotiations for
RFP 02-3293 "Consultant Services for Update of Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC)."
7)
Approve Amendment to 2002 Tourism Agreement between Collier
County and Kelley, Swofford, Roy, Inc. in the amount of $500,000 of
Disaster Recovery Funds.
8)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Bridgewater Bay,
Unit Two" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
9)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia Lakes-
Phase 3A", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
10)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Forest Park Phase
II' and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
7
February 12, 2002
Approve an Agreement to accept an Artificial Reef Monitoring Grant
from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Committee in the
amount of $7,000.
12)
Petition CARNY-2001-AR-1989, Kendall W. Gilbert, requesting a
permit to conduct a circus on February 23, 2002 to be held at the
Wing South Airpark located off of Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
13)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Madison Meadows".
14)
Authorize the Chairman to execute an Escrow Agreement relative to
certain canal improvements associated with the Olde Cypress PUD.
15)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Lely Resort Phase
Four".
16)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Lely Resort Phase
Nine".
17)
Petition CARNY-2001-AR-2039, Russell Tuff, Chairman, Golden
Gate Chamber of Commerce, requesting a permit to conduct a festival
on February 22 through February 24, 2002, to be held on County
owned property adjacent to the Golden Gate Community Center.
18)
Petition CARNY-2002-AR-2019, Sandra Ramos, Program Leader,
Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, requesting a permit
to conduct a carnival on February 28 through March 3, 2002 on
County owned property at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
19)
Approve resolution-waiving fees for lot mowing assessment
superseding Resolution 2001-426.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Request for speed limit increase from thirty miles per hour (30 MPH)
to thirty-five miles per hour (35 MPH) on Valewood Drive for an
estimated cost of $300.00.
8
February 12, 2002
2)
Request Board direction to revise the Forest Lakes Roadway and
Drainage Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) Beautification
Ordinance for the purpose of increasing the Tax Cap, potential
revenue increase $206,000.
3)
Authorize expenditure of Gas Tax Funds under the Enhanced
Consultant Services Project No. 60109 for the purpose of
development of a Transportation Concurrency Management System
with URS Consultants for $133,946.16.
4)
Approve Budget Amendments to shift funding resources among
project to optimize use of impact fees for various road projects.
5)
Approve an Easement Agreement and accept a drainage easement for
the Lely Stormwater Improvement Project.
6)
That the Board authorizes the Transportation Administrator or his
designee to execute the attached Federal Transit Administration
Section 5310 Grant Application and applicable documents for
$302,400 with a $33,600 local match.
7)
That the Board authorizes the Transportation Administrator or his
designee to execute the attached Federal Transit Administration
Section 5311 Grant Application and applicable documents for
$112,200 with no local funding required for match (soft-match).
8)
Approval of Resolution supporting continuing efforts to secure the
County's Transportation Outreach Program (TOP) funding for Golden
Gate Parkway that was recommended by the TOP Council on October
26, 2001 and now is being considered by the Governor and
Legislature for $8.45 million.
9)
That the Board of County Commissioners approve Collier Area
Transit to allow free rides in observance of their one year anniversary
on February 15, 2002.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve the Satisfaction of Lien Documents filed against Real
Property for Abatement of Nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to
9
I:ebrua~ '12, 2002
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
record same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Fiscal
impact is $144.00 to record the liens.
Waive Competitive Bidding and approve an additional $11,000 in
consulting fee to Public Resources Management Group (PRMG) for
the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study.
Authorization to use a sole-source software vendor for the Utility
Billing and Accounts Receivable Management Software System
(Total cost approximately $135,000).
Approval and Execution of Satisfactions of Notice of Promise to pay
and agreement to extend payment of Water and/or Sewer System
Impact Fees. Fiscal Impact is $81.00 to record the liens.
Approve Committee Selection of Firms for Contract #02-3304
"Production of Beach Compatible Sand". Fee for service is based on
cubic yards of sand produced.
Approve Committee Selection of Firms for Contract #02-3305
"Transport, Placement and Grading of Beach Compatible Sand".
for service is based on cubic yards of sand hauled and placed.
Fee
Approval of a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement between
Collier County and the City of Naples Airport Authority for expansion
of the Naples Solid Waste Transfer Station for an annual rent of
$35,673.
Approve Work Order #HM-FT-02-01 with Hole Montes Inc., in the
amount of $104,690.00 to perform professional engineering services
associated with construction of a reclaimed water main between Radio
Road and Davis Boulevard, Project Number 74035.
Approve Budget Amendment to restore total funding of Marco Island
Breakwater Modifications Project, $500,000.
Assign contractual duties to design and construct a sewer force main
from Richard K. Bennett, Trustee, to Vestcor Fund XV, Ltd., Project
Number 70054.
10
February 12, 2002
11)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $54.00 to record the liens.
i2)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the ! 993 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $64.50 to record the liens.
13)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $112.50 to record the liens.
14)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $184.50 to record the liens.
15)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $238.50 to record the liens.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approve a change in date from May 3 and 4, 2002 to April 12 and 13,
2002 of the previously approved Tourist Development Council
Special Event for the 2002 Country Jam.
2)
Approve road closure of State Road 29 for Roberts Ranch Roundup
Cattle Drive.
11
February 12, 2002
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Authorize Staff to reject bid received for 01-3303, Charter Bus
Service.
Fe
2)
3)
4)
5)
Award Bid #02-3314 for the advertising of Delinquent Real Estate
and Personal Property Taxes.
Award Contracts #01-3289 "Fixed Term Mechanical Electrical
Engineering Services" to the following firms: CH2M Hill, Anchor
Engineering Consultants, Teco BGA, Inc., Tilden, Lobnitz, Cooper.
Approve Committee Selection of Firms for contract negotiations for
RFP 01-3290 "Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services".
To re-appropriate $110,000 previously approved in Fiscal Year 2001
from the GAC Land Trust to assist the Golden Gate Fire Control and
Rescue District with the purchase of a water tanker fire track.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Ge
1)
To authorize the Chairman to sign State of Florida Emergency
Management Preparedness and Assistance Competitive Grant
Applications.
2)
Approval to enter an Agreement with the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for the reimbursement of Emergency Protective
Measure Expenditures.
3)
Board approval of expenses for the FAA Mandated, 800-hour
inspection of the County Medflight Helicopter.
COUNTY MANAGER
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
12
February 12, 2002
1)
Commissioner request for approval for payment to attend function
serving a valid public purpose. (Commissioner Carter)
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation that the Board approve the Settlement of all pending
litigation and claims involving Thomas Wajerski, including without
limitation, Case Nos. 95-3067-CA-01 and 95-2955-CA in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida and Case
No. 99-303 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, and authorize the Chairman to sign all necessary settlement
documents.
2)
Authorize application for Tax Deeds for 258 County-Held Tax
Certificates and authorize Notice to proceed to the Tax Collector.
3)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement
acquisition of Parcels 265B and 265BT in the Lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. Jeffrey Gargiulo, et al, Golden Gate Boulevard, Project No.
63041.
4)
Recommendation that the Board authorize the County Attorney to
retain outside counsel to represent the County in Vanderbilt Shores
Condominium Association Inc., et al, v. Collier County, Case No. 01-
5080-CA-HDH in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida and the Aquaport, LC v. Collier County, Case No.
2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, exempt the County Attorney from the
purchasing policy as provided in Section VII.G of the purchasing
policy and authorize the Chairman to sign any necessary retention
documents for the outside counsel.
5)
Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents, Dean
L. Larson and Bette L. Larson, for Parcels 210 and 210T in the
13
February 12, 2002
6)
amount of $14,300.00 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Douglas
Terry et al, Case No. 00-1297-CA. Project No. 63041.
Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents,
Racetrac Petroleum Inc., Wendell L. Kramer, Salvatore F. Anglieri
and Salvatore C. Grech, for Parcels 124 and 125 in the amount of
$71,550.00 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Anthony F.
dancigar, As Trustee, et al, Case No. 00-0142-CA. Project No.
60111.
17.
7)
Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent,
Richard R. Townsend, for Parcels 367 and 367T in the amount of
$2,880.00 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Richard R.
Townsend, et al, Case No. 00-2001-CA. Project No. 63041.
8)
Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent,
Roberto Bollt, Successor Trustee, for Parcel 101 in the amount of
$200,000.00 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Roberto Bollt,
Successor Trustee, et al, Case No. 00-2433-CA, Randall Boulevard.
Project No. 60171.
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. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
This item was continued from the January 22~ 2002 BCC Meeting.
Petition CU-01-AR-1620, James Weeks requesting a Conditional Use "7" of
the "E" Estates Zoning District to allow for an earth mining operation for
property located on the East side of Desoto Boulevard between 31 st Avenue
14
February 12, 2002
NE and 29th Avenue NE in Golden Gate Estates, Section 21, Township 48
South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. This site consists of 6.62+
acres.
Be
Ce
Petition AVPLAT2001-AR1742 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in the drainage easement and maintenance
easement located on a portion of Tract B, according to the plat of"Tiburon-
the Norman Estates at Pelican Marsh Unit 23", as recorded in Plat Book 31,
Pages 43 through 44, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in
Section 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
De
CU-2001-AR- 1225, George L. Varnadoe, Esq., of Young, VanAssenderp,
Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing Barron Collier Companies,
requesting Conditional Use #20 of the A-MHO and A-MHO-ACSC/ST
District for a "Sporting and Recreational Camp" located approximately three
quarters of a mile West of S.R. 29 and approximately one mile South of Oil
Well Road (C.R. 858), in Sections 19 and 30, Township 48 South, Range 30
East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to ST-2001-AR-1226)
Adopt a Resolution correcting Schedule Two of Appendix A, Water and
Sewer Impact Fees of the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended;
by decreasing Water Impact Fees $50.00 per equivalent residential
connection; and, correcting a Scrivener's Error in the Sewer Impact Fee
Schedule; and, correcting two Scrivener's Errors in the Water Impact Fee
Rate Schedule for the 3 inch and the 8 inch water meters.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
15
February 12, 2002
February 12, 2002
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT, AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please stand for the pledge of
allegiance.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The opening -- Reverend Paul
Jarrett, the Naples Church of Christ, will give the opening invocation.
I don't believe he's here, in which case I'll ask you to bow your heads
-- oh, Tom, go ahead.
MR. OLLIFF: If you stand, we can join me in an invocation.
Heavenly Father, we come to you this morning and thank you for
another gorgeous day. Father, we thank you for the opportunity to be
able to conduct your business in the public. Father, we pray that your
hand would be on this meeting this morning and on those that are
making decisions, that all the decisions that are made today would be
made in your interest, your best will, and in the best interest of this
'community. Father, we thank you for your blessing and your
continued guidance. We pray for your guidance today. These things
we pray in your son's holy name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Tom. I'd like to take just
a moment to recognize Marc Frazzano. He was a valued employee of
wastewater collections for 12 years. The colemetry scandal
(phonetic) field portion of wastewater was Marc's area of expertise.
His fellow's coworkers had the highest respect for Marc. They voted
Marc the employee of the quarter in the fall of 2001. Marc enjoyed
hobbies of woodworking and license plate collecting. Marc died on
February 8, 2002, after a lengthy battle with cancer. He is survived
by his wife, Annette, and younger daughter, Amber; parents, Antonio
Page 2
February 12, 2002
and Trudy Frazzano; brother, Donald Frazzano; and sister, Ciela
(phonetic) Frazzano. Moment of silence please. Thank you. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
I have a brief list of changes that I'll walk you through this morning.
The first item is an addition to your agenda. It's Item 9-G. We are
adding a resolution that would be supporting a Florida House bill,
and it's Bill 1225. It's an act providing penalties for drag racing in
public areas. I believe that's actually a bill being sponsored by
Representative Arza.
The next item is also an addition. It's Item 9-H. That's a
recommendation to ask the productivity committee to work with the
Office of Management and budget on the Fiscal Year 03 budget,
which is getting ready to start with a budget policy discussion by the
board the first meeting of March. That item's been -- both of those
items are on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Coletta.
The next item is just a note for the record on a consent agenda
item. On 16-B, as in boy, 9, the item had indicated that it was a
proclamation, but the item actually needs a resolution. And the
county attorney's office has already prepared that resolution, and it's
simply a resolution that would allow for one free day of transit rides
in observance of the one-year anniversary of your transportation
system on February 15th of this year. That's at staff's request.
The next item is a move from the consent agenda. Item 16-E, as
in Edward, 4, is moving to 10-C, as in Charlie. 16-E-4 was an
approval of a committee selection for firms for what we call fixed
term professional engineering services. That's our annual
engineering contracts. We're moving that to the regular agenda
following a -- an original protest and follow-up to that protest, for the
board's opportunity to be able to hear that issue.
Mr. Chairman, I think the county attorney will cover the next
Page 3
February 12, 2002
change on your change list. And with that, that's all the changes that
I have for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to address
Item 16-L-1, which is shown in the change list to move to 12-A under
the county attorney regular agenda. This has to do with the board
considering a settlement of litigation and claims involving Thomas
Wajerski. MR. OLLIFF:
MR. WEIGEL:
David, you need a microphone.
Pardon me. Thank you, Tom. I'll continue.
This involves the settlement -- consideration of settlement of pending
claims and litigation involving Thomas Wajerski, and the case
numbers are listed on the change list there and in the agenda item
itself. I think for purposes of the meeting today, really, as opposed to
moving it purely to the regular agenda, my desire and my request to
you, the board, would be that this item be moved to the February 26th
agenda and that -- and my request to you is that we have the
opportunity, the board with the county attorney and other specified
persons, pursuant to the Sunshine Law, to discuss this in executive
session, pursuant to the Sunshine Law exemption.
I will tell you that if you agree to that today, we will bring it
back on the 26th at the regular board meeting. We will provide for
the record, in an abundance of sunshine, both today and even in two
weeks from now, the names of the persons that would be present with
the board for the executive session to discuss negotiations and--
regarding settlement and the litigation itself. And what I'd be looking
for from you today is that you agree that it move forward to be
established on the agenda for both executive session, and then
pursuant to Sunshine Law, it would move out of executive session to
the regular discussion and consideration at that February 26th board
meeting.
Page 4
February 12, 2002
So that is my request -- my informed statement to you and my
request, and I would appreciate it if you would honor that request. In
so doing then, it will essentially be continued to February 26th
following an executive session where we meet collectively to discuss
the matter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And rather than bring that back later,
why -- and since you already explained what it was, is there any
motions on behalf of the board on that particular item, to move it
forward?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, so would I. I would like to
hear that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we need that in the form of just
a nod or a motion?
MR. WEIGEL: I would appreciate it if you'd make a motion
that you accept my recommendation, and that's what we will do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle and a second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4 to 0. And Mr.
Carter will be joining us later.
MR. WEIGEL: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that. Okay. Now,
before we go into the consent and summary agenda for the changes,
I'd like to see if there is any speakers on any items for the --
MS. FILSON: I don't have --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- consent agenda.
MS. FILSON: -- any speakers for the consent agenda.
Page 5
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me. Dave?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And when you -- before you move
on the summary agenda, it's appropriate for you to indicate any
disclosures that you may need to make, the ex parte disclosures of
contacts, communications, or printed material you may have received
in regard to each of those agenda items.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have a
disclosure of contact with the petitioner on CU-2001-AR-1225. And
with that, I will approve the consent summary and regular agenda
with the corrections and additions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's -- let's go down the
line and see if there's any other disclosures, and then we'll go ahead
and move on your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no disclosures for items on
the consent agenda. I do have a couple of--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've just received just some
paperwork, but that's 16-B. I don't think that would be a disclosure.
And I have received nothing else on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no disclosures on the
summary agenda myself. And we have a motion from --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, I jumped ahead of
schedule. I don't know if anybody has anything on the consent
agenda that they would like to pull off and put on the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's go down the list-- the line
on that. We did cover the summary. Do you have anything on the
consent agenda, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 6
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I have a couple of questions
only, or comments. With respect to Item 16-B, bravo, 8, it concerns
the funding for the -- the TOP's funding for the grade separation at
Golden Gate and Airport Road. I wonder if the Board of County
Commissioners would be willing to schedule a joint workshop with
the City of Naples on that issue. Not to interfere with the approval of
this item on the consent agenda, but on a later date, have a joint
meeting with them. There are questions concerning total costs and
sources of costs, both from me and from the city council, and I think
that it might be -- since part of that property is in the city, that it
might be appropriate if we sat down with them and talked with them
about it.
The other item is on 16-L, Lima, 2, concerning tax deeds. The
county has, on occasion, the opportunity to -- to advertise for sale
and/or purchase certain properties because of tax liens. And I found
out we don't really have a process to determine whether or not there
are environmentally sensitive lands there or lands that might be
required for mitigation, and I would merely suggest that we -- if the
board would agree, that we ask the staff to establish a procedure to
review those lands so that they can be acquired if necessary, rather
than being sold.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have none. Now,
Commissioner Henning, would you like to restate your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Yes. But also a question on
Commissioner Coyle's comments with the grade separation. Would
it be appropriate, Mr. Olliff, to have that discussion at the MPO?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, you certainly have representatives of both
the city and the county there. If you wanted to ask the MPO to have
Page 7
February 12, 2002
that discussion, you could. Obviously the balance of the -- the
commission and the council would have to be brought up to speed by
the members that are representatives there on the MPO.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we are having an MPO
meeting on Friday, but I'm going to be going up to Tallahassee and --
and working specifically on this subject next week. And I was
wondering if there's any -- any concerns you have, if you could tell
me about them at the MPO meeting so that, you know, I don't head
into a track that you're uncomfortable with, I would appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there were a number of
issues raised by other members of the city council, other than those
represented on the -- on the MPO. I think it would be a good idea to
get all of them together. And if we did it at the MPO, that would be
fine too. Perhaps we can invite all of the members of the city council
to at least attend the MPO meeting, and then we -- we'll have a
chance to take their comments and address their questions if they--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excellent idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. To restate my motion is,
communication I had was with the -- on the summary agenda CU-
2001-AR-1225. And with that, I'll make a motion to approve the
regular consent and summary agenda with the amendments and
additions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
Page 8
ozz~zzz~oz ~:3M 9~I77~010 -COL~TY MAN~GE"~ P~GE ~1
AGENOA ..... CHANGI~S
BOARD OF COUNTY CO ,MI, VII~SIONER$"MEETING
February 12. 2002
ADD: ITEM 9G: A Resolution supporting Ftori~ House Bill "1225 - "An .Act
providing penalties for drag racing in public areas." (Commissioner
Coletta.)
ADD: ITEM 9H: Recommendation to direct the Productivity Committee to
work with the Office of Management and Budget on the FY 03 budget.
(Commissioner Coletta.)
ITEM t6(B)9: This item has been chanfled to approve the adoption., of ?
resolution rather than a proclamation That the BCC approve the Collier
Area Transit to allow free rides in ol~ervance of their one year anniversary
on February 15, 2002. (Staff request.)
MOVE: ITEM 16(E)4 to 10~: Approve Committee Selection of firms for
contract negotiations for RFP 02-3290 "Fixed Term Professional
Engineering Services." (Staff request-petition filed.)
MOVE: ITEM 16(L) 1 TO .!2(A)' Recommendation that the Board approve
the settlement of all pending litigation and claims involving Thomas
Wajerski, including without limitation, Case Nos. 95-3067-CA-O1 and 95,
2955-CA in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida
and Case No. 99-303 in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, and authorize the Chairman to sign all necessary
settlement documents. (Staff request.)
Post-it* Fax Note 7671
'D~te J ~e ot ,.
Co.
none ~
February 12, 2002
Item #2B-F
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2002;
SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2002; WORKSHOP
MEETING OF JANUARY 15 AND JANUARY 16, 2002; AND
REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2002 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we approve the January 8, 2002, regular meeting; January 9,
2002, special meeting; January 15th, 2002, workshop; January 16th,
2002, workshop; and January 22nd, 2002, regular meeting. We need
to fit a couple more meetings in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, a
second by Commissioner Fiala. Any questions or discussions?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
Item #3A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING VETERAN'S
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND ITS VOLUNTEERS -
ADOPTED
Next we come to proclamations, and the first one would be
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is Mr. James H. Elson here?
Page 9
February 12, 2002
Okay. Would you step forward. You can stand right here if you'd
like.
Whereas, the Veterans Transportation Program is a cooperative
agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the
county -- Collier County Veterans Council; and,
Whereas, the program began operating in 1992, and the purpose
of the program is to transport veterans to VA medical appointments
at the Fort Myers VA
Outpatient, the Bay Pines VA Medical Center, and the Tampa Haley
VA Hospital; and,
Whereas, the program maintains an office in the Collier County
Department of Veterans Affairs (sic) and utilizes one half-time
employee to coordinate services; and,
Whereas, volunteer drivers transport veterans by van, two of
which are owned by the VA and stationed at Collier County Veterans
Services, and one vehicle provided by Ford Motor Corporation under
their fleet test program; and,
Whereas, in 2001 the pool of 27 volunteer drivers transported
513 veterans to VA medical appointments, including 123 trips to the
Fort Myers and 151 trips to the Bay Pines facility. Over 2,000
volunteer hours were logged and more than 56,000 accident-free
miles.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to recognize the Veterans
Transportation Program and its volunteers, including volunteer
county office staff as well as volunteer drivers, as providers of an
invaluable service to veterans and to the community.
Done and ordered this 12th day of February, Board of Collier
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James N. Coletta,
chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve, Mr.
Page 10
February 12, 2002
Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
(Applause)
MR. ELSON: I'd like to call up the drivers. Drivers, volunteers,
would you please step forward and accept this proclamation, please.
We've got a good group of people.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm glad they're not all here for
public input.
MR. ELSON: Gentlemen, come up and accept this.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
(Applause)
MR. ELSON: One of the things that's been a privilege --
recently I've just assumed the position of president of the veterans
council. But over the last couple of years, I've had the chance to talk
with a lot of the veterans in the different groups that I'm involved
with. In Collier County there's roughly 35,000 veterans who have
served in all of the wars from World War II to D-Day invasion and
Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf War, and all the other conflicts in
between.
A lot of stories, a lot of personal dedication, and a lot of
sacrifice for support of the -- this country and its residents and its
citizens. The people don't say very much. They've done a lot, but
they're very quiet about what they've done and very humble. It's 'nice
that we can provide this service, as small as it' is, but most important
as it is. It's nice that we, as a county, can provide this service for the
people who have done so much for our country. I thank you very
much.
Page 11
February 12, 2002
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Item #3B
Commissioner Henning.
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING FEBRUARY 10-16, 2002, AS
FLORIDA CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION WEEK-
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I got the next
proclamation, and I would like to call up Dr. Fred Tuttle and Dr. Dan
White from the school system, Collier County school system. Dr.
Tuttle, thank you for being here.
Whereas, career and technical education is the foundation for
preparing Florida students for academic success and the work force;
and,
Whereas, career and technical education is a comprehensive
approach to work force education and preparation that provides
opportunities for self-sufficiency and career advancement for
Florida's citizens, promotes literacy and academic achievements, and
provides job training and employer partnerships designed to improve
statewide economic development; and,
Whereas, career and technical education is a integral component
for the -- for Florida's employers to draw upon for maintenance of
(sic) academically prepared, technologically skilled, and compete
(sic) work force; and,
Whereas, statewide systems of work force education includes
programs and services for all occupations delivered locally through
school district technical centers and community colleges and services
(sic) Florida students K through 12 and adult education.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Page 12
February 12, 2002
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that February 10th
through 16th, 2002, be designated as Florida Career and Technical
Education Week in Collier County and urges all citizens to become
familiar with the service and benefits offered by vocational education
programs in the community and supports and participates in these
programs to enhance their individual work skills and productivity.
Done on this order (sic), 12th day of February, 2002, and signed
by our chairman, James Coletta.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I make a comment while we're
congratulating Dr. Tuttle? I just want to say I really had the privilege
of serving on one of the advisory boards for Vo-Tech. And if any of
you haven't been there recently, oh, go over there. It is a wonderful
place. The things that they're doing and the way they're growing and
the professionalism is -- is -- makes us all proud, I want to tell you.
So I'm glad that we're here today to congratulate you. Thank you.
(Applause).
(A discussion was held off the record.)
DR. TUTTLE: Commissioner Fiala stole my thunder here.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to
do that.
DR. TUTTLE: I would like to thank the commission for the
proclamation. I'd also like to invite the members of the commission
to visit both Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology in Naples and
the Bethune Education Center in Immokalee. Both of those have
Page 13
February 12, 2002
great programs, and we are, indeed, growing by leaps and bounds.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #4
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now for the service awards.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as the board's making their way
down to the floor, I'll take the opportunity to call up your first two
recipients. The first are both five-year attendees with Collier County,
and the first is Marilyn McKay, with the library; and the second is
Darcy Waldron, with your emergency services administration.
(Applause)
MR. OLLIFF: The next recipient this morning, Mr. Chairman,
is a ten-year attendee, also with your library department, Ronney
Cox.
(Applause)
MR. OLLIFF: The last award we have this morning, Mr.
Chairman, is for a 15-year employee, Mark Burtchin, with your
transportation division.
(Applause)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN, MELANIE
THE MANATEE AWARD- PRESENTED
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's all your service awards this
Page 14
February 12, 2002
morning. I will take the opportunity to indicate that the next item on
the agenda is a presentation by the Big Cypress Basin, and I believe
Mr. Tears is here to make that presentation. We're disappointed,
Clarence, that you didn't bring Melanie with you, but that's -- MR. TEARS: I brought her.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We wanted to see the --
MR. TEARS: Oh, you wanted the big one. Good morning,
Chairman and Commissioners. It's an honor and a privilege to be
here today. And before I start I'd like to recognize Alicia Abbott.
She sits on the Big Cypress Basin Board, and she's also a Collier
County employee.
The Melanie the Manatee Award goes back -- a few years ago
we started this program, and it started on a writing contest. We had
an art -- actually an art contest where we sent out through our Collier
County schools to have people draw what water resources meant to
them and come up with a mascot for the basin. After we went
through this program, we adopted Melanie the Manatee, which was
the winning art photo. Then we created the Melanie the Manatee
Award where we recognize government agencies, local citizens,
institutions, and anybody that goes -- takes the extra effort to protect
the water resources of Collier County and -- and really pushes water
conservation.
I'm really honored to be here today and really want to recognize
Collier County for their efforts. You -- you are recognized
throughout the state as a leader in water conservation. Twenty
percent of your water supply currently is from alternative sources.
That means 20 percent of your current supply is being produced from
alternative resources. You're currently using reuse water.
I think I've got some statistics here. About 11.6 million gallons
of wastewater a day is being used to treat golf courses, medians, and
other areas throughout Collier County. You have two reverse
Page 15
February 12, 2002
osmosis plants which go to the deeper aquifers which are not fresh.
So you have to do additional treatment, but they don't impact the
surficial (phonetic) aquifer, which is directly tied to the wetlands. In
addition, you've created inverted rate structure to -- to make people
pay more for the water if they abuse it and to recognize people for
their efforts on conserving water. And also, I think you're in the
process of adopting an additional ordinance for conservation
measures.
With that, on January 24th, the Big Cypress Basin Board
recognized Collier County for their efforts and provided the award
with Commissioner Fiala. And today I'd like to recognize the whole
commission and Collier County for their efforts and being in the
forefront for water conservation. And with that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Clarence.
MR. TEARS: -- I'd like to present the Melanie the Manatee
Award.
(Applause)
Item #5B
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) UPDATE-
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now we're under the -- oh, is Abe
Skinner here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, he is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Abe, would you step up and give us
an update of where we are with the GIS? Love your Web site.
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Commissioners, and good
morning. For the record, Abe Skinner, Collier County Property
Appraiser. And I'm here to give you an update on our geographic
Page 16
February 12, 2002
information system, xvhich we're very proud of. You now have a
dedicated server in our office that the county has connected to. That's
it. See ya. No.
As you all know, the property appraiser's office, many years,
have been laying the foundation for this GIS program. We've imaged
over 600,000 property cards. We've fixed our maps to where they
would be compatible to the computer over a period of time, and
we've done this in house, and it's taken a number of years to get to
where we are now. And here a few years ago when we started to
contract for our GIS program with some company that could -- could
finesse this for us, I realized that the county was also on that same
track.
And I suggested at that time to save taxpayers' money -- we're
going to end up at the same station -- why not let me take the lead on
this, develop the system, and then share that with the -- the other
constitutional officers and the county? And that's what we did. Be
careful what you ask for; you may get it. There's been a lot of sweat
and tears involved in this. I told -- finally told the person that we
contracted with that this had better be a good system because I know
where your children are. A little joke there.
But seriously, they have done a wonderful job for us. We're not
on schedule. The company that we contracted with put us on the
back burner when the war in Afghanistan started because they were
doing mapping work for the government. So with that, I accepted
that as being put on the back burner.
We have a terrific Web site. I understand that some of your staff
has already started using that to enhance what they do. With the
connection to us, though, there will be many, many more tools that
the county will have available to them to do their work better than
they do and also that we can -- we can enhance what we do. But
we're very proud of that. The connection has been made.
Page 17
February 12, 2002
There's other things that are coming online, such as the Lydar
(phonetic), which would give us the elevation. That'll be in a 3-D
format to where -- it's just fabulous. I couldn't take the time right
now to explain just how that works, but it's going to be fabulous.
Those have been promised to me by the end of this month, and then
we'll get that online also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to commend you, Abe. I'll
tell you, one of the things I've been after for a long time, and I see it
turning around, is freedom of information, and your Web site is the
perfect example of what government can do. In fact, it is so helpful
that when I pulled up my own house up on the Web site, I come to
realize that I better get the pine needles off the roof, and I've taken
care of that. Could you possibly share the address with us so that
people might be able to tune in on it?
MR. SKINNER: Wwwcollierappraiser.com. That's our Web
site. The first time when we -- after we put it on the -- put the GIS on
the Web site, we crashed. There were so many users that hit it at one
time the system crashed, and we've beefed that up now, and hopefully
that -- that won't happen again. But it's -- it's -- we're keeping the
taxpayer in mind by getting this information out to the taxpayer and,
at the same time, enhancing what county government does so that we
might all do our job a little bit better. Thank you for the time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #6A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next we're going to go to the public
petition and comments on general topics. Do we have any public
Page 18
February 12, 2002
comments?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have three.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you call them up,
please.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Kenneth Thompson, and he
will be followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Kenneth Thompson. You know, Abe
Skinner, he's one of about the best people in the world, really. He
sends me a bill, and he gets paid before it leaves -- the mailman
leaves. I'm not kidding you.
But, you know, what I want to say is, is this -- I don't want to
hurt -- I want the man to have the bar, you know, but this -- across the
street, this canal, from me has accumulated a motorcycle outfit now,
and I'll be damned if I can live there. And I've had ten operations
since last March. I just went through one Tuesday. And now, I went
to Don Hunter, I've done everything I can do, but if you put one -- I
never knowed they had a PRB board until this people got -- they're
having me to put these deputies -- and God bless. You know, I was
so sorry I ever did it, and now it -- it's gotten to where you can't get
the law to help you. But when you start signing PRB copies on
people, it's the wrong thing to do.
There was one gentleman I felt so bad about -- matter of fact, I
was talking to a deputy this morning. And if you'd give me just a few
minutes here, if you will, if I run out of that time -- this -- this bar, the
guy came to me. I loaned him a camera before he ever got into this
bar. He took pictures of it inside, and he was a man that told me that
there were -- he told code enforcement, Michelle Arnold, there won't
be no more loud music. There won't be no this; there won't be a lot
of that. I asked you about the pole sign. I found out this morning
you finally give him that. Well, I don't care about the pole sign now.
But this motorcycle problem has got to go. And one deputy
Page 19
February 12, 2002
come yesterday afternoon. After they left the bar, they came around,
sat right in front of my house running these motorcycles wide open.
And I lost four kids, 16, 17, 18, and 19, one right after another, two at
a time; two at Palm Pharmacy, two in Fort Pierce, Florida. I'm in the
sod business. I put the sod on them.
And I'm telling you I hate motorcycles. It brings back old
memories. And if you never do nothing else for these people in here,
stop this motorcycle outfit from going there. And they tell me it's
lawyers and doctors. Well, hell, let them go and tear their
neighborhood up. I inherited this property. I keep it in A-1 shape.
I'm not able to do anything, but my hands was cut all to pieces.
And I'm headed for another hip operation, and every two years
they're supposed to take the metal out of me and replace it. You keep
going through something like that, and your head gets screwed up. I
got three plates in my head. But people think I'm a damn idiot, but
I'm smarter than you -- I'm the only man you know that ever come
here and made a good living. And there ain't no people out here,
homeless people. I don't care who you are. Collier County -- you
come to Naples, and you can make one hell of a living if you got it
right up here. You don't need no education. I never had a education,
never went to school.
But I'm going to tell you, this bar, he can have the bar, do
anything he wants. But this two o'clock in the morning yelling and
screaming has got to go. I live here; the bar is here. He's threatened
to sue me. This thing has got to stop. Now, I'm asking you. I been
to Don Hunter, Scott Anderson.
It's funny, you sign one paper on this guy, it goes through, they
work him over. And, God, I felt bad about it because they're about to
have a kid, and I didn't know that. It was his own people that told me
to do it or you won't get no results. You won't get no results. Keep
signing them, keep signing them. And I'm telling you, I signed one,
Page 20
February 12, 2002
and one of his lieutenants, you want me to tell you what they did?
Much as you did, nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to ask you to wrap it
up, but I see Michelle Arnold is taking notes right now about your
problem. I'm sure she's going to --
MR. THOMPSON: But please help me, though. I don't care
about the bar, not now. But this damn thing's got to stop.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll use all the resources available
to us to see that your problem is -- is looked into, and we'll respond to
the legal limits of--
MR. THOMPSON: That's all. You know, and that tank --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: And you tell George when you see him he's
still my friend, and you too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Yes, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Krasowski, and he will
be followed by Ty Agoston.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Nice to
see you. My name is Bob Krasowski. I'm with Zero Waste Collier
County. So much is going on in the development of the new county
solid waste management system that I thought I'd take the
opportunity to speak to you today specifically on one item so as when
the item comes up along with so many other things, it's -- sometimes
it's just so hard to address every aspect of it.
So to get to the point, I'm here today to mention a few issues
regarding the nonresidential recycling ordinance that is in its third
draft, and I was -- it was mentioned to me that this was probably the
third and final draft, which somewhat alarmed me because Zero
Waste, as it imagines itself or as it is to whatever degree
representative of the public's interest in regards to the solid waste
issue, has not been engaged in discussions specifically on this
Page 21
February 12, 2002
ordinance or the contents of the ordinance.
This -- the solid waste department, Mr. Yilmaz, has met three
times with the chamber of commerce, and the chamber of commerce
has had a great deal of input. Zero Waste is making an effort to
communicate with the chamber of commerce to discuss the various
aspects of it. But as we read the ordinance, it's very slow. Like, we
believe that the key component in a successful solid waste program is
diversion-- separation and diversion of recyclables and reusable
materials out of the waste stream.
And this ordinance, as far as our commercial -- commercial
waste stream is 60 percent of the waste stream going into the landfill.
So we would like to see an aggressive program to divert that waste,
that recyclable waste, into recyclables. This ordinance, as it stands
now, goes very slow. And it-- it initially has not -- doesn't-- not
much of anything for a year and then gradually phases some of the
businesses in based on square footage over the next year, and we
would like to see that accelerated.
But a point I'd like to make is by diverting the recyclables from
the waste stream, we extend the life of our landfill. And by diverting
materials going into our landfill, we also minimize the justification
for the expense and the pollution of adding a large machine to
process our waste.
We suggest that -- there was another study done along with this -
- it's in its preliminary stages -- that shows that many businesses can
save money by recycling, and they're not aware of this. We suggest a
program within the county government to make these people aware
of it. We suggest that maybe a dollar be put on the tipping fee and
then that money come in to finance the operation of a special office
of materials diversion, reduce -- waste reduction, recycling,
reclamation so that the county can help businesses discover ways
they can recycle and save money at the same time.
Page 22
February 12, 2002
And then if-- if-- and I don't mean to be harsh in this
suggestion, but it should be discussed. We're going to try to discuss
it, and we'll talk to you more about it when the ordinance comes up.
Maybe it'll be in there. Excuse me. I'm trying to talk fast as the
clock ticks down.
But let me make another point, and that is for those businesses
who, for one reason or another, don't want to participate in the
separation of recyclables, the diversion of recyclables, in a practical
way -- now, we don't expect every business to remove every
recyclable. But for those businesses who could do it, even save
themselves money if they don't want to, we suggest that their rights
are limited as far as being able to put recyclables in the landfill and
fill up that finite space that we have as a community. It's not the
business landfill; it's the community landfill.
So I might suggest that an alternative option be made available
to those businesses. And we believe there wouldn't be that many
because it pays to recycle. But those businesses could contract for a
hauler to take their mixed waste and bring it to the Okeechobee
landfill, because if they continue to fill up our landfill with their
recyclables due to their lack of interest in being cooperative, all of us
will be bringing our garbage and paying the price of transporting our
garbage to Okeechobee landfill; or all of us will be paying to build an
alternative machine, some of which are polluting, and some of which
are expensive.
This is all going to be analyzed as -- as the issue goes on, but I'd
like for you to just think about that. And when the issue comes up,
maybe we can engage in conversation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't go yet, Bob. Commissioner
Fiala has a question for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rather than take up much time
right now, I was wondering if when we have a break, if you're still
Page 23
February 12, 2002
here, could we sit down and talk? Because some of the things I've
noticed that trouble me a lot are when you're at a restaurant, for
instance, and behind the bar they have actual garbage cans where
they put glass in one and cans in other. So they've already done the
work, but they -- they don't have a receptacle to pick it up, number
one.
And, number two, apparently if there's recycling going on for
these items that'll never deteriorate in a landfill, they're charged.
Instead of giving them, you know, an incentive, they're charged if
they recycle properly. So maybe afterwards we can talk a little bit.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'd be glad to talk to you. And there are
many other aspects to this and refinements on the points I've made,
but that'll have to wait for another date or when we talk. But I just
wanted to bring, generally, those concepts forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We appreciate the research you've
been doing.
MR. KRASOWSKI: And I'll be around.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Ty Agoston.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, Ty.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Ty Agoston, and I'm-- live in that endangered northern
Golden Gate Estates. I also represent a new organization called Tax
Watch, and I'm speaking for them. I am a member of the now-extinct
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Committee. I think that's the -- the
correct title. But listening and attending some of the presentations
that's being made by staff as well as by Bob Mulhere, who is the
consultant for the county, it disturbs me how the findings and
decisions made by that assessment committee that listened to the
material for some 60-some-odd meetings at three hours' length are
pretty much disregarded. And unless attention is focused on it,
Page 24
February 12, 2002
nobody even mentions it.
It is the staffs position and belief that the key ingredient of this
entire suit that the Wildlife Federation brought against the county
with the apparent agreement of the county, because the county did
not fight it, apparently are coastal brethren in their intent desire to
limit growth, have let their attentions known.
But going back to the main issue, transferable development
rights is the, pretty much, bone of contention, and the committee did
not -- and let me underline did not -- approve the concept.
Transferable development rights was presented by one of your paid
consultants, and it has only been successful in two areas. One of
them is my home state of New Jersey, which is the densest-- most
densely populated state in the country. And the other one is the -- the
very heavily populated area of Delaware, which again, is densely
populated. It did not work anywhere else.
What it does do, in fact, is limit the property owner's ability to
develop their own land. And I am not talking about large developers.
I'm talking about those little guys that not too many people pay
attention to. You know why? Because they do not make any
political contributions. The people who make political contributions
live on the coast, large homes, drive heavy cars, and have plenty of
money. These people on the flip side -- I think I mentioned to you a
number of times that I came from a communist country. If you don't
have property rights, my friend, you have nothing. I mean, you're
talking about the freedom of speech, that's meaningless. We can all
push hot air around. It doesn't mean anything. Now, if you make
plenty of noise, they'll put you in jail anyhow.
Commenting on that issue, the preamble of the governor's order
is public participation. According to the Naples Daily News, which
is very close friends with this no growth element, the planning board
chair have threatened a mere -- a small property owner to be put in
Page 25
February 12, 2002
jail yesterday, would not open public comment for this, again, single
individual, single property owner whose property is being
endangered, to put in jail. Are we following the governor's order,
who said that the hallmark of this study is going to be public
participation; or are we just following the orders we really want to
follow, which is to pick on these little guys?
But, you know, Bruce Anderson and the other gentlemen
representing large developers and large landowners had no problem
making the deal. Okay. It cost them. Bruce Anderson gave away
half the property owner's property in a deal that benefited the
property owner. So a large developer has no problem. He has the
legal power and the -- the knowledge to fight the issue properly. The
little guy do not. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ty. Do we have any
other speakers?
MS. FILSON: That's it.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JIM KRAMER TO DISCUSS
TOWING BILL - DISCUSSED. MR. KRAMER ADVISED TO
CONTACT THE CITY OF NAPLES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next, Jim Kramer under
public petition.
MR. KRAMER: Good morning. My name is 'Jim Kramer, and I
reside on Plymouth Rock Drive in Naples. Quotation: The only
thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
This quotation is attributed to Edmund Burke, an Irish philosopher
and a statesman of the 18th century, from his treatise Thoughts on the
Cause of Present Discontents in 1770. As we all know, these present
Page 26
February 12, 2002
discontents abound today here in Collier County, so I'm here to add
another chapter.
A month ago my fianc6 borrowed my car to go to work at her
two jobs, first on Horseshoe Drive and second at the Coastland
Center Mall. About halfway between these jobs, she realized that she
had left her purse at the office. In what turned out to be a self-
fulfilling prophecy, she thought, "I need my purse in case I have an
accident, and the police will need to see it if something happens." So
despite rush-hour traffic on Golden Gate Parkway, she made a left-
hand turn into Poinciana Professional Park where the Barron Collier
Companies are located.
Now, traffic in the first two lanes of rush-hour traffic waived her
through, but although the third lane appeared clear, what she didn't
see was a fast approaching vehicle trying to make the green arrows at
Airport Road. As she entered that lane, She was struck by a car at 35
miles an hour, an estimated 35 miles an hour. The good news of this
story is that for both vehicles the safety equipments worked, and seat
belts and air bags saved all from serious injury. The bad news is that
in this time of extreme distress, our county ordinances allowed an
unscrupulous towing company owner to line his own pockets at our
expense.
After the accident Naples Police and emergency services called
the next towing company in line per their rotation schedule. Joe
Nagy showed up and towed both cars to his storage yard a mile away.
I called him the next morning and asked him to tow the car a half
mile up his street to Tamiami Ford's collision shop for a repair
estimate. He said he would be happy to do so, but couldn't do so
until the following day. I gave them -- gave him the okay to do so
and didn't think any more about it.
So here's the problem. The bill is $260. Let me repeat that.
The bill is $260 to tow a car a mile and a half. Come to find out,
Page 27
February 12, 2002
Collier County regulates these towing rates with what are termed
maximums. Joe Nagy can legally charge these maximums and get
away with these unconscionable rates. He made a few arithmetic
mistakes like Joe Biasella, but otherwise nothing happens until
somebody complains. I'm here to complain.
Remember I said the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing. You are the good men and woman of
Collier County, and I ask that you place this case on a future agenda
and allow us to return to more reasonable and competitive rates. If
Police Chief Steve Moore of the City of Naples; Jim Lavin of AAA,
the auto club; and Jeff Bogan of Allstate Insurance are here, they may
wish to give voice to their own opinions on this case. If not, I will
hope that you will consider their testimony during that future
meeting.
Before I yield the floor, I have one additional comment. You
will notice that I have changed this speech somewhat from the first
daft -- draft given to the county manager last Tuesday. Gone are the
references to where I and my family live. This is because I was
warned last Friday that Mr. Nagy has a record and cannot tow for the
county or the state. He has contacted my employer twice and tried to
intimidate them into silencing me. I now fear for my life and health
and ask you to consider your own terror in the light of the events of
September 11 th. This is America, and we should not have to be
fearful for standing up for our rights. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kramer, please, if you
have just a moment.
MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I reviewed this last week, last
Friday. I contacted the mayor and told her what we are going to
consider. I faxed this information over to her. Looking at it and --
and getting some advice from the people that are in the towing
Page 28
February 12, 2002
business, two things came out. Yes, the -- the towing people think
that you were overcharged. The second thing that was noticed, that it
was in the City of Naples. One of-- well, Mr. Nagy is on their
towing list. I feel that -- and in talking with the mayor she agrees --
that the City of Naples, it's in their hands to help you resolve this
issue. And if you take a look at -- I'm sure you didn't call Nagy
Towing. It was the Naples Police Department who did that. MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, like you stated, they are
not on our preferred list. So I think your best opportunity to have
resolution is go to the city manager's office or the -- the mayor's
office to see if you can get some restitution in this.
MR. KRAMER: I will do that, sir. I was told that the county
ordinances covered the towing business and that three violations,
which I believe have taken place, would get him removed from the
ability to do business. And so, yes, sir, I will contact the city,
although they -- they referred me to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And -- and the mayor
has talked to the city manager, and I think they're going to look --
take a look into it. But I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. And thank you,
Commissioner Henning, for going the extra mile to research that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my yob.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MIKE CARR TO DISCUSS
REDISTRICTING
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your yob. The next one is public
Page 29
February 12, 2002
petition request by Mike Carr, which is also going to be held in
conjunction with Item 9-F.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, while he's coming up, are you
going to accept speakers on this item?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would-- yes, we will accept
speakers on this item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where are we at?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Carr.
MR. CARR: Hi. My name is Mike Carr, and I'm here to talk
about congressional redistricting and where we are in the process.
The reason this is important to this commission and to all the citizens
of Collier County and, for that matter, you know, Lee County, is that
federal dollars affect virtually every aspect of our life here in Collier
County or Lee County. We need federal money for highways,
airports, schools. I think the city of Immokalee has at least half a
dozen federal grants that help keep it afloat. Whether we like it or
not, the federal government is intimately involved in our daily lives,
and they give us back a portion of the money we're paying in taxes.
There are currently proposals, in particular the one submitted by
Mario Diaz Ballard (phonetic), that would strip Collier and portions
of Lee of their local congressman. We think it's a bad idea. We have
a local congressman because ten years ago the issue was litigated in
court, and the Court gave us a local congressman. The legislature
didn't quite get it together ten years ago and the court challenge
necessary.
A couple of names in that court challenge are familiar. One is a
local political activist. Gina Hahn (phonetic) was one of the
complainants ten years ago. And interestingly enough, one of the
lead plaintiffs also was Mario Diaz Ballard, who was with the
Republicans protesting the evil Democrats who were attempting to
draw terrible district lines that reached over and grabbed Collier
Page 30
February 12, 2002
County and placed them in with Miami. Well, the cast of players is
the same. Some of the sides have changed, but the points remain the
same.
Ten years ago it was wrong for Democratic power brokers -- and
they were running the show then -- to try and borrow Collier County
to take our votes and our money and leave us in the lurch. And we
Republicans said a lot of brave things about how terrible it was, how
evil it was, how morally bankrupt it was, and all those things are true,
still true. In fact, some power brokers on the Republican side of the
aisle right now want to do the same thing to Collier and Lee County.
It's as wrong now as it was wrong ten years ago. If we don't
fight to preserve and protect the local congress we have, we can't
win. We have to fight. As late as a couple of days ago, Porter Goss
said he thought this might have to be litigated in court because he
was unsure about whether the process was going to be resolved fairly
for Collier County and for Lee County.
Chuck Mohlke and I and Fred Hardt got together months ago,
many months ago, to try and form a bipartisan group to try and think
of a fair way to handle redistricting. And I want to note right now
that Chuck's the Democratic Party chairman, and ten years ago when
the Democrats were trying to pull the same stunt, Chuck had the
courage to stand up and say, "This is morally wrong" and stood with
us to try and protect the citizens that live here. I don't think I can do
anything less than to stand with Chuck to try and look out for the
citizens that live here.
There's some talk that we should be willing to compromise and
give up half the county or more than half the county for the -- for the
greater good, the greater good being the -- maximizing the number of
Republican seats in congress. I'm the party chairman. I'm the Bush
campaign chairman. I was President Bush's campaign chairman. I
was Former President Bush's campaign chairman. I love the family.
Page 31
February 12, 2002
I love the Republican Party. But I have a little different perspective.
Government exists to serve the people the government
represents. And if we lose sight of the fact that we're -- that our only
purpose for being in government is to help the people that we
represent, I think we lose our mandate to govern. If we don't place
the interests of the citizens here first, we don't have any -- any reason
to serve. It's simply wrong, morally wrong, to place personal
ambition above the needs of the citizens here.
And what Mr. Diaz Ballard is doing -- he's not the only one; he's
just the one that's most open about it -- is he's designed a plan to put
himself in congress. It takes over 80,000 of our citizens, including a
big chunk of the citizens in Lee County, and ships them down to
Hialeah. We would lose our local congressman. We'd lose our
ability to contact our local congressman when we have problems. If
we want to contact a congressman with his main office in Hialeah, it's
2 1/2 hours and 2 1/2 hours, you know, back. I know because we
went down there when we were doing some of the adoption
proceedings for my daughter Mary Elizabeth. So I know it's 2 1/2
hours down there and 2 1/2 hours back because it took the whole day.
There aren't too many people that live here that can afford to give that
kind of time up in their day. That's assuming there was some point
for the trip.
Right now in the hearings -- we had hearings in Naples, Fort
Myers, and La Belle. Chuck and I were involved, along with a lot of
other people, in organizing hundreds of citizens who testified. These
citizens are heroes. They gave up a day of their lives to put
testimony on the record about the need to keep Collier and Lee joined
together as closely as possible. I attended the hearings here in
Naples. We had other folks attending the hearings in -- in Fort Myers
and Immokalee.
There was not a single citizen, not a single one at any of those
Page 32
February 12, 2002
three public hearings, that said, "Gee, I'd like to have lines drawn that
take a chunk of Collier County and ship it down to Hialeah." I would
have heard that. I mean, it just didn't happen. Not a single citizen
said, Gee, I'd like to take half of Lee County and draw a line over to
Palm Beach or maybe a line over to Fort Lauderdale and help out the
folks there who need a few extra votes. I've got nothing against
people that want votes. God knows I like votes too. I -- I do have a
campaign I'm running.
But you lose sight of what's right if you're willing to sell out
the interests of the people who live -- and this is friends and
neighbors and everyone in this room. If you're willing to sell
everybody out for the purpose of a vote, you know, what are you?
You're certainly not a public servant. I hope and pray that this can be
resolved without the necessity of a court challenge.
One of the folks we got involved early on was A1Hoffman
(phonetic). A1 and his group, WCI, did a good job in helping out in
the Fort Myers area, and he wears a couple of hats. One of them is
he's -- was the finance chairman for the National Republican Party,
and now he's Governor Bush's chairman. And he was kind enough to
write a letter to the governor expressing his concern, in fairly strong
terms, that we get a fair reapportionment that didn't dismember Lee
and Collier County, and I thank him for that. He didn't have to do
that.
We have to fight for ourselves. No one's going to do it for us.
If we don't fight, we can't win. You, ladies and -- well, you, lady and
gentlemen, have been a part of this from day one. Chuck and I
appeared before the county commission quite some time ago. And, I
think, as a matter of fact, it was September the 10th, interesting day.
And you-all passed a resolution and came up with a proclamation
supporting our goal of fair redistricting for Collier County and for
Lee County, and you've been right there -- right there in the
Page 33
February 12, 2002
beginning. You've fought with us to try and -- try and get us a fair
shake, and I appreciate that and honor you for it.
A lot of people have devoted themselves to what should be a
really simple concept. We've got a local congressman. We want to
keep a local congressman. We deserve a local congressman. We
have a right to have a local representative who cares whether we live
or die. We have a right to have someone who cares whether we get
our fair share of our tax dollars back. If we lose this fight, the slack
in dollars is going to have to come from somewhere. People are
going to be standing in front of you saying, give us the money, the
money we don't have, the money we shouldn't have to come up with
because it's our money in the first place. We should get our fair share
back from the federal government.
If Diaz Ballard won't come to his own hearings to talk about
redistricting when he's supposed to be there, we'd sure never see him
as a congressman. I think Chuck's got some specifics. Thanks.
Support the resolution.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2202-89 REAFFIRMING THE COUNTY'S
POSITION ON CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING-
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MOHLKE: If it please this honorable board, my purpose
here is to try and illustrate for you the significance of some of the
mapping that has been talked about generally but can only be
appreciated, Commissioners, if you look at the exhibits that are in
your file folders. I won't expand on the mapping. The material is
readily available, and we're very hopeful that the print and television
media here in Southwest Florida will use these maps to illustrate
Page 34
February 12, 2002
what's at risk here. And if you would look in the materials that have
been provided to you--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me just one moment, Chuck.
MR. MOHLKE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there a possibility you might be
able to put the maps on the visualizer? That's the map where you --
MR. MOHLKE: That is the map that has just been distributed
to you which, for purposes of illustration, as members of the
audience, both on television and those present today, will look at the
light colored district in Southwest Florida, that represents a map that
was created for the purposes of the public hearing which was held
here on September 24th and was proposed by Chairman Carr and
myself as a map which kept the core of Congressional District 14
intact. And that map was gratefully accepted by -- Senator Webster
is the chairman of the joint committee on redistricting, and he made
good on his promise to make it available to interest groups, both in
digital form and in the original map form.
And the map that you see is that that has been drawn by the
League of Women Voters and Common Cause, jointly demonstrating
that a map can be drawn for Florida that equitably distributes
populations and keeps counties and municipalities and communities
of interest intact, intact. And you will have presented for your
consideration a resolution, a very brief one which hopefully you'll
give consideration to, in which the operative words are "divide" and
"separate." And that, essentially, is the whole point of the other map
exhibits which have been provided.
Those exhibits will illustrate that-- first of all, if you have
-- have them handy, Mr. Manager-- that we have Senator -- that
represents an effort on the part of-- of-- that's the -- the blown-up
version of what you have just seen. If you have any other maps there,
we can just highlight them briefly here for these purposes.
Page 35
February 12, 2002
You have presented for your consideration four maps. The first
is a committee map approved by Chairman Diaz Ballard and his
colleagues in the Florida House, which I believe you will find
illustrated as Map 001, and demonstrates that Collier County has
been absorbed -- my word, "absorbed" -- into a district which
includes a -- a district which comes west from Broward, east from
Dade County, and south from Lee County. That particular map,
developed by a committee member, Representative Hogan, includes
an opportunity to divide Immokalee in two and also provides
opportunities to divide significantly the urban area of Collier County.
The other maps, which perhaps the manager can just put up
briefly, will illustrate -- this is also Representative Hogan's map,
which includes 82,000 persons in Collier County in with the district
that includes close to 500,000 residents of Dade County.
And the last map, virtually identical to Representative Hogan's,
is a map that was originally proposed by Representative Diaz Ballard
and is different only in respect to some small modifications on the
east coast.
I'll conclude my remarks this way: The maps are very
illustrative of the issues of separation and division. And that, I
believe, is Senator Latvala's map adopted by the committee of which
Senator Saunders is a member. And the transcript of that committee
is in Attorney Manalich's hands, and he will, at the request of the
commissioners, I'm sure, provide copies of that.
And it will illustrate the profound lack of communication
between persons centrally involved in this process in Tallahassee,
who are themselves residents of areas very distant from us, who have
taken the initiative to draw maps that include a majority of the land
area of Collier County in a district that begins in the Dry Tortugas
and goes all the way to Sebring, Florida, and a vast area, largely
unpopulated, of Broward going on up through the center of Florida to
Page 36
February 12, 2002
-- virtually to Polk County. That district is so unmanageable on the
face of it that it would be a true challenge for anybody to represent its
constituents adequately. And I think to see that in map form is to
illustrate the core of the concern that Chairman Carr and I have had
from the beginning.
I commend to you the resolution, which I believe has been
reviewed by the county attorney's office, and hope that you will give
it appropriate consideration. And I want to be sure that you are aware
of the fact that this mapping is -- comes to you courtesy of the
generous contribution of time and technical competence of my
colleague, Liza McClennahan (phonetic), who is seated in the
audience here, and we are all benefited by her work and keeping
track of these issues. And hopefully you will find this beneficial to
you in your deliberations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before you go away, I want to
thank you and Mr. Carr and Liza for working on this for the
betterment of-- for the good of the community. I understand the
wishes not to split up the community as far as representation. What
really concerns me of the map that -- that was put up there, by the
representative from Dade -- or Mi -- Dade County, is it takes the
minorities of Collier County out of the other district.
And taking away equal representation, in my opinion, for the
minority is -- you know, if-- if the lines are drawn the way proposed
by the house and the senate, then you're pretty much going to have
coastal people represented by one representative; and the urban and
rural areas, it would be represented by somebody very remote from
Collier County. And I guess, for the most part, that is really
concerning to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I would
support this resolution. I -- I would like to propose a modification to
Page 37
February 12, 2002
it, just for discussion purposes only. And that is in order to show a
united front here, to insert a statement which says we support the
efforts of Dudley Goodlette, Butt Saunders, Porter Goss, and the
Collier County Republican and Democratic Parties in their efforts to -
- to keep this district together.
And the reason I raise this is the same reason we raised this on a
similar resolution several weeks back. I think it's important that we
show support for our congressional delegation and that the people
who receive this resolution understand that this is a -- a joint effort,
that we are a team working together for a common good. And my
only hesitance is that we really should find out if Dudley Goodlette,
Butt Saunders, and Porter Goss want their name included in it. And -
- and if they -- if they would and if the board here would agree,
would you have objection to that? MR. MOHLKE: None.
MR. CARR: None by me. I'd like to add that -- a thank you to
all three of those gentlemen. Dudley and Butt were there at the
beginning in the formation of a bipartisan group. They both provided
moral and technical support. They've been great. Porter's been
primarily tied up with other things in Washington, but his -- he's been
ably represented by his staff, and they've -- they've pitched in.
They've done a tremendous job. We're all singing the same -- same
song.
Dudley early on made the comment that I still think about
regularly, that what happened with the Democrats wouldn't happen
since we were in power and that we would be fairer than they were.
And God bless Dudley. I -- I think he's got a tree heart, and he wants
us to be fair, and he wants fair districts. I think some of his
colleagues don't share that sentiment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I, for one, support your addition.
The only thing is, I don't think we need to go to them to say that we
Page 38
February 12, 2002
support you in your efforts. I -- I believe that they'll accept it very
graciously if we include that verbiage in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I sure hope so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Speaking of Dudley, I fall
into one of these brackets. I live in Lakewood. Half of my district is
in Dudley Goodlette's district, and I work very hard for Dudley, but
I'm not the half that falls into his district. And if I went to approach
my state representative telling him what I feel, he lives over in
Miami. First of all, he doesn't care what I feel. Secondly, he's going
to be siding with the other side. So I never have anybody to go to. I
go to Dudley hoping that he'll represent us, even though he's not our
representative.
So I would feel that -- I would ask all East Naples residents --
and there's a lot of vocal ones out there -- get on your computers
today and start e-mailing. E-mail everybody that can make a
difference.
MR. CARR: The governor can make a difference by himself.
That's something everybody needs to understand. The only person in
this state right now that by himself can change this is Governor Jeb
Bush. He has the veto power over the congressional redistricting. If
he chooses to explain his concerns to the affected representatives,
we'll see maps in the final version that are much more acceptable. He
can stop this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, would you like
to make that-- your recommendation part of the -- a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I would. I would like to
make a motion to approve, subject to the -- the modification that I've
made and suggest that if-- if the board approves it, that we get with
the -- the county attorney to incorporate that language in the final
resolution.
Page 39
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I wholeheartedly second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What we're going to do
before we take a vote on that, we're going to have public speakers.
How many do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have one. Ty Agoston.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not going to oppose this,
are you, Ty?
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Again,
my name is Ty Agoston, and I now certainly live in an endangered
northern Golden Gate Estates. And want to echo the sentiments
expressed by a Republican, and I'm a partisan Republican. And I
also echo a Democrat, which is a very highly unusual situation. I
believe that for-- the maps that I have seen would disenfranchise
everybody from east of 75, the people who really have very little
voice now. They're not very wealthy; consequently, not too many
listen to them. That thing is slowly changing as well-to-do
developments come into the area.
But what I want to concentrate on is I believe that you can make
a difference individually. I believe that you should definitely enact
the resolution the gentlemen have suggested. But in addition to --
each of you individually swing a lot of political power. The members
of this county listen to you. Collier County is the second largest
dollar contributor to the Republicans and to Governor Bush. This is
an election year. If you speak out individually and you tell him that
you will encourage your constituents, your constituents individually,
it will add to the force of your resolution. And the fact that if you
mention dollars, I believe that normally influences most people, even
me. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ty. Is there any other
comments? Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Just one. For the balance of the board and for
Page 40
February 12, 2002
both Mike and Chuck's sake, the -- the chairman and I have been
working on -- a letter, and we've developed a mailing list, to every
single major homeowner association that we can find, most of the
businesses, most of the civic and fraternal organizations, asking them
to prepare and start a letter-writing campaign. And we would--
wanted -- we had intended to package these and send copies to the
entire legislature while they are in session. And I think, based on
Mike's comments this morning, we'll also make sure that we send
those first to the governor's office. But I think if they can get a
consolidated picture of where Collier County stands as an entire
community, it might be some help. So we're going to try and organize
that campaign.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's -- in answer to Mr. Agoston's
suggestions, we are moving forward with that. And I think that
probably three or four of us are going to be up in Tallahassee in the
next couple of weeks where we will be actively pursuing this to the
ultimate, till that point in time where they ask us to leave. But the
point on dollars is very important. And in your communications, if
you are involved in politics, you might want to reference what you
have done in the past and what you plan to do in the future. Is that
put forward quite right, Mr. Carr? Is that politically correct?
MR. CARR: I've been a political insider for -- since I was a kid,
and I've talked to everybody I know that contributes to the party and
asked them to let folks know they're concerned, the people that want
to receive the money. And I'm asking each Republican office seeker
as they come through Collier County to take the pledge that they'll
look after Collier County and say a few kind words before we're
dismembered on a chopping block in the committee sessions. And
they seem attentive when they're there asking for money. I'm not
sure how that's going to translate down the road, but they always
listen politely when they're -- they have their hands out.
Page 41
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Carr. Thank you for
a wonderful job. Before we vote, Mr. Weigel, do you have any
comments to make on this?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I -- I look forward to working with Mr.
Coyle. However it formulates from the board's direction here in
regard to the final language of the resolution, I think the concept is
pretty clear.
I will note for the record that in regard to the statement in the
resolution regarding litigation, that should there be a situation unfold
from the Florida Legislature -- where we, the county attorney office,
we'll be watching that very closely and would be advising you before
-- before litigation would -- would ensue -- obviously this board
would need to direct staff as far as -- and county attorney office -- if
we were to be involved in litigation, the resolution speaks in terms of
the support of litigation, and we will, again, monitor that very
closely.
I might add, also, that with Tom's discussion with you a few
moments ago in regard to his efforts with Commissioner Carter
providing information to the neighborhood associations in relating to
this very important issue, that I would ask that this board, in its
actions it takes right now on this agenda item, that it also provide an
endorsement of the activities that Tom and -- and Chairman --
Former Chairman Carter, Mr. Carter, are pursuing parallel with this
issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. With that, is there any
other comments? Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's Commissioner
Coletta that's working with the county manager on contacting all the
homeowners.
MR. WEIGEL: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The problem that we're running into
Page 42
February 12, 2002
is that this mustache that I've been growing, they're confusing me
with Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, you could
shave it off.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, then they'll confuse me with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One thing, if we do get into
litigation, I would ask Mr. Carr and Mr. Mohlke to work with the
board to go into the other communities in Lee County and get them
on board in our efforts to be united, be one.
MR. CARR: That's something that -- I'm glad you brought that
up. That's something you might want to consider, inviting Lee
County for a joint session to discuss this. They're -- they've been
very quiet as far as government entities being concerned. These lines
chop Lee County up almost as badly as Collier County. I mean, they
ship them to Palm Beach. They ship them to Fort Lauderdale. And
you guys have been there from day one, and I haven't heard Lee
County expressing the same concerns, so maybe they need to be
enlightened.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like me to see if I could
get you on the agenda this week for the Southwest Regional Florida
(sic) Planning Commission?
MR. CARR: Sure. Be glad to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll give it a try. Maybe we can reach
out and touch them. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I know you have all of us
political people who, you know, have -- political junkies involved in
supporting this thing because we're all vehemently in support of this.
What about the environmentalists? I mean, they're usually -- they
can be a very vocal group, but they're not usually politically active,
and they will certainly be chopped up massively by this.
Page 43
February 12, 2002
MR. MOHLKE: Commissioner Fiala, your point is very well
taken. And ten years ago when we were involved in a similar effort
that even divided Collier County in a more bizarre way than you've
been seeing today, the environmental community was very stalwart in
regard to that because those were in the early days when they were
still fleshing out the Big Cypress Preserve. When some of the
programs now well in place to fund environmentally endangered
lands and so on were only up for consideration by the legislature,
there was very substantial support, that is reflected in the Common
Cause League of Women Voters, in which these areas are kept intact
because Common Cause particularly is in very close communication
with some of the affected parties that -- that you have just cited.
And when we come down to that time when we have -- when we
have a need for colleagues in support of our efforts here at a
statewide level, they have a -- shall we say, some agendas that they're
pursuing in the legislature today that occupy them, not exclusively
but fundamentally. I think we can count on their support and interest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other questions or
comments from the commissioners? With that, I'll call the question.
All those in favor of this -- Mr. Olliff, I noticed you raised--
MR. OLLIFF: One, I think you need a second for the motion. I
think there was a motion made. I don't think there was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I wholeheartedly seconded it.
MR. OLLIFF: But I would ask the board to consider amending
that motion to include direction for the staff to pursue that letter-
writing community campaign, if you would.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that have to be in the
resolution or just a sense of the board? Can we just provide you the
guidance?
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely. David just feels like in that
particular case, I do need specific --
Page 44
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
resolution.
MR. OLLIFF: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
motion.
It wouldn't be a part of the
Not at all.
And would you --
I would-- I would so amend my
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, I'll call the
question. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Commissioners, very much for the
opportunity to present this to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go on to the Board of
Zoning -- I'm sorry. Mike, go ahead.
MR. CARR: Thank you and God bless.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Before we go on to the
Board of Zoning Appeals, we're going to take a short break for the
stenographer.
MR. OLLIFF: And during the break -- I'll just note for the
record that that's when we'll hook up, by phone patch, Commissioner
Carter, who will be here for the balance of those public hearings.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
(A break was held.)
(The proceedings resumed with Commissioner Carter present
via speakerphone and Commissioner Fiala not present.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Commissioner, if you could maybe test for
Commissioner Carter and see if he's --
Page 45
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, are you out
there?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Glad to have you here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. REISCHL: We need to swear in, Mr. Chairman.
Item #7A
VA-2001-AR- 1166, AVl BARON, PLS, REPRESENTING
MONTCLAIR FAIRWAY ESTATE BUILDING CORPORATION,
REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 2.3 FEET
FROM THE REQUIRED 5 FEET TO 2.7 FEET FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON 797 PROVINCETOWN DRIVE, LOT 29,
~ MONTCLAIR PARK NORTH - DENIED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, please do. Would you swear in
the participants for the first item, which is -- what do we got here for
the first one -- Fairway Estates Building Corporation request for an
after-the-fact variance. All stand, and would you swear them in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any
ex parte communications.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how about you, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have had some discussions with
staff, including Mr. Mudd, just with respect to gathering information
about this.
(Commissioner Fiala entered the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I haven't had a conversation with
Page 46
February 12, 2002
anyone about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I had passing conversation that
this was coming up, but nothing was shared with me as far as the
particulars. Everything I received was from my agenda package.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner, I met with staff
on this issue, like Commissioner Coyle, to gather information and be
briefed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services. This is a request for an after-the-fact variance in
the Glen Eagle subdivision. In the subdivision, the single-family
section, a 5-foot side yard setback is required. And, as you can see in
the spot survey that was submitted for the building permit, there is a
5-foot side yard shown. A subsequent survey, prior to a resale of the
house, shows that the setback is actually 2.7 feet up in the top corner
there. The encroachment is 2.3 feet.
We have an objection from the neighbor that is most affected by
this. That was brought to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission looked at a number of ways to do this. One of them was
a lot-line adjustment procedure, which is an administrative procedure,
wherein if there's enough property on the adjacent parcel, that
property can be transferred from this property owner to the east to the
property owner to the west, and that would give that property owner
the 5 feet and result in 5 feet for the property owner that sells the
parcel.
The Planning Commission deliberated whether or not to
continue this and have the two parties negotiate for the sale of it or to
recommend denial and to stay out of it. So that's what they decided,
was to recommend denial and to let the parties negotiate on their
own. As you know, this has been continued from the board before
because negotiations were close. And as of now I have not received
Page 47
February 12, 2002
word of any settlement between the two parties.
Planning Commission, recommends denial.
this?
Staff, like the
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the petitioner here?
MR. REISCHL: Miss Nelson is, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we -- do we have speakers on
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have two speakers, and Carol
Nelson is one of those speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we go ahead with
that, and then we'll come back and talk to staff.
Okay. Carol Nelson. She will be followed by
MS. FILSON:
Jim Mudd.
MS. NELSON:
My name is Carol Nelson. I'm a registered
surveyor in the State of Florida. I received a letter that was generated
by Mr. Mudd's attorney, and the letter stated that Mr. Mudd requested
$12,500 for the 119 square feet of his property. In the letter it refers
to a punch list. Mr. Baron constructed Mr. Mudd's home, and there
was some finishing details that were never taken care of. And so in
the $12,500, which includes, I believe, the 119-square-foot price,
there's also the -- the cost of making the -- the adjustments to his
home.
In a meeting that I had with Mr. Baron, Mrs. Mudd, and Mr.
Mudd's attorney, we asked what the cost was for the 119 square feet,
and I was never given an answer, to divide the 12,500 from what was
construction costs to what I needed to pay. And I feel that a fair and
equitable agreement is three, four times what the square footage is
actually worth. And I'm willing to pay $2,000, but I've never gotten
any other response from anybody other than the letter dated
December 4th. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is more of a matter between two
parties. I -- I'm having a little trouble seeing where we come in trying
Page 48
February 12, 2002
to set a price on the property. But, in any case, let's -- let's hear what
everybody has to say, and then we'll be able to act accordingly.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Jim Mudd.
MR. OLLIFF: I'll note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that Mr.
Mudd is on his own time during this item, has taken leave.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
paycheck?
MR. OLLIFF:
MR. MUDD:
That'll be reflected on his
Yes, sir.
This is -- I'm Jim Mudd, public citizen in this
particular -- private citizen in this particular case. I own the house
next door. Since the time that Miss Nelson met with my wife and my
lawyer to clarify what's going on, there has been a -- an agreement in
-- in spirit, one that hasn't hit the writing part yet as far as a contract
is concerned.
The original price was set on -- on Miss Nelson's first appraisal,
where it was 278 square feet that they needed, not 119. Since that
time she did a second appraisal where she came -- or a second survey
where she came up with 119. Since that time Mr. Baron, as part of
this verbal agreement we had, came in with another surveyor and
found that he needed additional -- additional square footage on top of
the 119 in order to -- in order to come within the -- to come within
code.
The -- this was discovered when I -- when I had my survey
before I closed my house. The -- and I guess I can use these pictures
since they're public record. When they did the original survey on my
house -- this is the house next door, the one in question, and this is
the back of my lanai. You'll notice that the stake, when they open
their door off of their lanai, the door breaks the plane of the property
line, and they actually physically have to exit and walk onto the
property in order to get that.
Page 49
February 12, 2002
Because I saw that, and being a county employee, I didn't have
much choice. I called Tom Cook and said, "Tom, this doesn't seem
right. I don't understand what's going on. But if you've got a
surveyor on staff, you need to take a look at this because I don't think
the variances are right." If you take a look at that picture and you
take a look at that diagram that Mr. Reischl had put on earlier, it's --
it's not that they need -- that they need 2.3 feet here; they need
footages all the way on that whole side of the house. And this is a
better depiction. If you take a look, yes, they need 2.3 feet back here
at the comer, but they also need .3 feet at the -- at the garage part of
their building, and they -- they need footages all the way in order to
make it into that 5-foot variance in the process.
I will tell you that Mr. Baron and I have been in
communications. We are trying to come up with a negotiated
settlement. The price of the land, property, now is down to $5,625, to
air my private laundry in front of the board. But -- but that's where it
sits right now, and it's a total of about 120 square feet, not the 278
that was initially put out by the original survey back in -- or by his
surveyor back in the early June time period. He -- he has a couple
more issues left as far as punch list is concerned. It was a pretty
extensive punch list on the house. He should be finished within the
next week or so, at which time we can -- we can sign the paperwork
for the land, and that's the intent.
But all that aside, that has to do with negotiations. The issue
in front of the board today is, do you -- this -- this item has been
continued since 11 December on the board process, as we try to work
out this agreement. The arrangement to try to sell the land or whatnot
is irrelevant as far as -- as far as I'm concerned at this process. I
reported a code violation to -- to the community development's
environmental services folks that were -- that have that as their
charter, and -- and I think there's a way that this person can purchase
Page 50
February 12, 2002
land in order to come into code without giving them a variance. And
that's the issue that I'd like to present in front of the board today.
Subject to your questions ...
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the only question I would
have is, do we have any like cases that came to us, something similar
to this, and how do we find that?
MR. REISCHL: Usually when there is a lot-line adjustment
that's possible, the parties will choose to go in that direction rather
than go through a variance. A lot-line adjustment is administrative,
and it's definitive. Coming in front of the board is -- you're paying a
lot of money for an after-the-fact variance, and it -- you don't know
the outcome going in, so most people choose to settle as a lot-line
adjustment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One question. If the lot line is
adjusted and everything comes down and we find in -- against the
variance, we vote against it, would that be removed if the lot line was
changed? It would no longer be a violation; right?
MR. REISCHL: If the lot-line adjustment is made -- if the
variance is denied and then a lot-line adjustment is made, that will
resolve the code case, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What would be the time line between
the time we reject it, if we rejected it, and the time that they would be
-- code enforcement would be on top of them?
MR. REISCHL: If this is denied today, I will talk to Michelle
Arnold when I get back to the office and put the case into her hands.
I don't know her time span for notice of violation, but that's -- that
would be in code enforcement's purview at that time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle,
Commissioner Henning, one of you had a hand up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We both did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Go ahead.
Page 51
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to look at that
picture again. I have some questions on that picture. The screened-in
area of the neighbors, is that the backyard, front yard, the lanai?
MR. REISCHL: It is technically a side yard. It functions, I
believe, as a back yard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know how much I use
my screened-in lanai, and that -- I could see why the Planning
Commission denied it for that reason. That's the only question I
have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I would like to preface my
comments by saying that -- that my opinion concerning this is not in
any way affected by -- by the involvement of a county employee
here. I generally take a very, very hard line with respect to variances.
This is an experienced builder. They -- they know what the
procedures are. They know they have to have an appropriate survey,
an accurate survey. It should have been checked during construction.
I -- I don't know how you put a value on the potential
depreciation or the impact upon future appreciation of the -- of the
house next door by -- by this -- this variance. If-- even if-- if an
agreement were reached between the two, this incursion into the side
yard setback has a long-lasting and permanent effect upon the value
of the house next door. And -- and I don't know how you put a value
to that. And-- and if-- if the parties are able to reach a settlement,
that's fine. But -- but my preference, quite frankly, would be to deny
the variance and move the house. That's exactly the way I feel about
it. It should never have been built there, and -- and that would be my
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to make that a
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would. I'll make that a motion.
Page 52
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner--
COMMISSiONER FIALA: I'll second that, because that's
exactly what I was thinking as well. And, too, I tried to pick myself
out of the situation as -- I didn't want to figure who the players were
or what the situation was, and I totally agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. Then we'll
go to Commissioner Carter, who, I think, has got his hand up out
there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I guess the motion is
to deny the applicant of-- of it. And we're -- I guess we leave it in
the hands of the two parties to resolve the issue. Okay. I understand
the motion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, do you--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm-- I'm clear on all the points
made. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And is there anything
else from staff on this before we proceed with the vote? MR. REISCHL: No thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion; we have a
second. Is there any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have to close the public
hearing?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Close the -- the public
hearing is now closed. We have a motion, and we have a second. All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Opposed?
5 to 0. Thank you very much.
Page 53
February 12, 2002
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2002-90 RE PETITION VA-2001-AR-1564, BILL
POTTER OF POTTER HOMES, INC. REPRESENTING BILL
AND KRISTI GRIGSBY, REQUESTING A 6.5 FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO
18.5 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 390 WILLETT
AVENUE, LOT 8, CONNERS VANDERBILT, UNIT 2-
ADOPTED
Okay. The next item will require the participants to be
sworn in. Bill Potter of Potter Home representing Bill and Kristi
Grigsby, referring a variance -- requesting a 6.5-foot variance.
Would you please swear in the people standing. (The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And for disclosures we'll start with
you, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No communication. I did drive
by the site in the neighborhood over the weekend.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only that I have received
documentation from the petitioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, yes. Correct that. I do
have that, and that's right here in my packet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've received documentation, no
contact.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've reviewed the document that
was submitted by the petitioner and also have physically inspected
the property.
Page 54
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I also have
received the same documentation. You may proceed.
MR. REISCHL: Commissioners, Fred Reischl again, planning
services. This is a request for a variance to reconstruct a home with
the same setback that the home has had since 1983. A building
permit was issued based on a site development plan. And to orient
you on this, the street is at the top of the screen, and this is waterfront
back here.
And the -- the petitioners had planned to put a second story on
the house. And according to code if you have a legally constructed
house and want to put an addition on at the same building line, that's
an administrative variance. They were planning the reconstruction
based on this administrative variance. However, the builder
determined that the first floor could not support a second floor;
therefore, they had to raze the entire house. And it no longer -- since
the house was not going to be there anymore, it no longer became an
administrative variance, but a variance in front of the Board of
Zoning Appeals, so that's why you're here today. To show you --
and, again, to compliment Mr. Skinner and his Web site, this is one
of the GIS photos we got off there. This is the Grigsbys' house, and
you can see if there were any view concerns, this is the house that
would most be affected by the continuation of this. And their view is
out towards -- their view is out towards the waterway that way. This
is basically just a garage area that would be affected by the Grigsbys
here.
The Grigsbys did participate in the public information portion of
the code, the new public information code. They notified their
neighbors within 150 feet. They did not receive any negative
responses from their neighbors. There was one person that showed
up at the Planning Commission who spoke at the Planning
Commission saying that he intended to come there in opposition,
Page 55
February 12, 2002
spoke to the Grigsbys before the item came up, and supported -- or
had no objection at the end. The Planning Commission voted 7 to 1.
There was one Planning Commission member who dissented on the
principle that a new house should have to conform to the existing
setbacks, not the former setbacks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions from the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. As I understand the
petition, it was a petition not only to incorporate an existing setback
violation, but to request an extension of that -- that setback change
for the construction of a new house.
MR. REISCHL: Actually, it's not a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two parts.
MR. REISCHL: It's not a setback violation because they were
legal in 1983, so they legally constructed the house in 1983. The
setback had changed in the meantime, and they wanted to keep that
existing setback. And, as I said, most neighbors said as long as they
stay where they are, they didn't have an objection to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there is a proposed addition to
that portion that would intrude into that setback.
MR. REISCHL: Not to the rear, no. They have additional
house that's going to be built towards the front of the lot, but that is
within the front setback.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understood there was supposed to
be something in the rear off the pool.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. There's a pool -- proposed
pool deck that is on the --
MR. REISCHL: Yes. That was handled through an
administrative variance. Again, because of the continuation of the
existing building line, that just required an administrative variance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's already been approved?
Page 56
February 12, 2002
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. REISCHL: July.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. REISCHL: Last year.
And when was that approved?
July of this year?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Last year. Of course. July doesn't
come before February, does it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not in my calendar.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you show us on this picture
where the -- where the variance would be? No. On the picture that
you had there. Thank you. Just show me where they want that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we can see a line right there.
MR. REISCHL: Here's the -- this is the property line in red, and
here you can see the lanai and the existing rear of the house.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the rear of the house is going to
extend --
MR. REISCHL: Exactly where this picture shows.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- all the way across. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the variance is going to be --
MR. REISCHL: The variance will be for the-- initially it was
supposed to be for just the second stow, and that would have been an
administrative variance. However, because the first stow structurally
would not support a second stow, they have to tear it down, and then
an administrative variance doesn't work. So it's the same basic
thing. If the first floor had supported a second stow, they wouldn't be
before you. It would be in front of the planning services
director. But because the second story -- the first stow wasn't
constructed to support a second stow, they're here before you today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the interesting part about this
Page 57
February 12, 2002
is that up until now -- and we haven't got through this meeting yet --
there hasn't been any objections to this from the neighbors; right?
MR. REISCHL: That's correct. Just the one who showed up at
the Planning Commission and changed his mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And all the neighbors have been duly
noticed?
MR. REISCHL: They've been noticed by the Grigsbys.
They've been noticed by us. Our new public participation was in full
swing during this process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And go ahead, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Just -- just a question for some guidance and consideration by the
board. I'm not going to tell you you have to move the house. Okay?
The concern that I have is the one that deals with potential precedent-
setting decisions. We approve all sorts of after-the-fact variances for
good reason. And -- but it is my belief that we generally require,
when the home is reconstructed or torn down, that we -- that it be
built in accordance with the existing setback requirements or under
existing zoning laws. Now, if-- if we do approve a new construction
to setbacks that existed many years ago, not to our current standards,
what does that do with respect to all of the other variances we have
on the books of a similar nature?
MR. REISCHL: I -- I think part of the analysis that staff did
was based on the fact that the Grigsbys were going forward with this
with the intention that we had told them it would be an administrative
variance, they had their building plans drawn up, that the house had
been in this exact location for 19 years, and that it was not directly
affecting a view that had not been previously obstructed for the last
19 years.
So you're right. We don't -- we usually look at variances with an
Page 58
'February 12, 2002
eye of let's bring it up to today's standards. However, the code does
allow ameliorating circumstances to come into play, and we believe
that the ameliorating circumstances in this case overshadow the
negative.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also, too, we have the option
every time there's a variance to accept or refuse. It's not based upon
previous decisions; is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: Yeah, that's true. Each variance will be site
specific. And also, if I can point you to the resolution, that says that
if this house is damaged 50 percent or more, it will have to meet new
setbacks. Now, of course, the owners at that time could come in and
request another variance, which is what the Grigsbys are doing, but
they don't have --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also, too, there is a fee attached
to apply for a variance, which is how much? MR. REISCHL: A thousand dollars.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So it's not something that is granted
without some forethought going into it. MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Henning, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have a question when you
close the public hearing.
MR. REISCHL: I believe the petitioner is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not quite there yet. Go ahead.
MS. GRIGSBY: My name is Kristi Grigsby, and my husband
and I own this property at 390 Willett Avenue. I'd just like to provide
a little background as to what brought us here today, some of what
you already heard, and I hope to clarify some other questions you
might have.
It's been about a year and a half ago when we bought this house,
Page 59
February 12, 2002
and we bought this house with the intentions of simply remodeling it.
A year and a half ago it was supposed to be so simple, and it hasn't
been. Like we said, our first -- the first glitch that we same across
was trying to expand that lanai. The lanai is currently about 20 feet
away from the side setback yard the way it is now, and we simply
wanted to expand that to the 7 1/2-foot allowable setback, and that is
why we applied for the administrative variance that was in the -- the
binder.
But as our planning process continued, we learned from
engineering consultants that this house could not structurally support
a second story. For those of you who drove by the house, you saw
the house is sitting atop a hill, a big hill. There's no evidence of any
pilings or footings or any other real structural support for that house.
And, in fact, the engineer had said, you know, there's -- it's possible
that this house is sitting on nothing more than that big pile of dirt, so
you can't add a second story to that. But regardless of that, we have -
- you know, we can't build a sound structure for the safety of our
own family, for the safety of our neighbors, for the safety of our
financial investment, frankly, on a house that's sitting on dirt.
So we've left -- we've been left with two alternatives: Either we
work with what's already there and we somehow try and get
underneath that building and give it the support that it needs to -- to
make our changes and to make the remodeling, or we rebuild it the
way that it should have been done, with the proper foundation. Now,
in essence, we can -- you know, somehow with our builder, we can
somehow get under there, get footings or something. But still, in the
end we don't believe that this building would be -- it would be
inferior to what we can do by starting from the ground up. And by
rebuilding we can also build to the 2002 hurricane codes, which is
what we fully intend to do.
We can also fix that slope of the land. If you saw the house
Page 60
February .12, 2002
sitting -- you know, I, again, reference that hill. You see the side
yards. I don't know what that slope is, but I can tell you that it's
significant enough that my children aren't allowed to walk on it. It's
nothing but a slope of dirt. So we -- we will fix that. You know, you
can imagine with the summer rains what that does to the neighboring
properties with the water runoff down there. You know, we're sitting
up high and dry, but they've got puddles, feet of water in their
driveways. So it's not just that we want a variance. It's not just that
we want to keep -- I mean, there's some significant issues that are
involved with this house.
During the past year in our planning process, we've met with
various members of the planning services department, and that is how
we learned of these rear setback issues. And we're not requesting to
go any closer to the water than is already there and that was already
approved almost 20 years ago. We simply want to rebuild a safer,
stronger home right where it is on that rear setback.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions of the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a comment. Excuse me. I'm
really glad that Mrs. Grigsby came up to speak to us today because I
didn't realize that they were also going to alleviate some of the
flooding problems that could be created, and I think that that's an
important thing. I didn't read that in any of the backup material.
That's a very important thing. So in other words, by granting this
variance, the neighbors will also benefit. So everybody -- it sounds
to me like it's going to be a win-win situation. From what you've told
me, all the neighbors have agreed that it's fine with them. It's nothing
that they're not used to after the last 19 years. So that's the way I see
it, anyway. And I -- I would make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Fiala and a second from Commissioner Carter for
Page 61
February 12, 2002
approval. Is there any other speakers? One more speaker? MS. FILSON: There are no more speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No more speakers. Is there any other
questions of staff before I close the public -- well, I close the public
participation as of now. I believe you're done; right? MS. GRIGSBY: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Unless you have a question. Hold it.
Did you have a question of--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Actually, this is more
directed at Commissioner Carter. This is in the Vanderbilt Beach
moratorium area.
MR. REISCHL: It's close, but it's not within the area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the Vanderbilt Beach property
owner director -- I don't remember his name. MR. REISCHL: Frank Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Frank Halas came out, and he
was absolutely opposed to it until he heard all of the things you
presented.
MS. GRIGSBY: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that correct?
MS. GRIGSBY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At least that's what I read in my
backup material.
MS. GRIGSBY: That's correct. And we did talk to him again
last week, and he had said, you know, his position and that of the
board has remained unchanged.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- well, since this is in
Commissioner Carter's district, I'll take his direction and lead on this
Page 62
February 12, 2002
issue.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. Mr. Halas is now the
president of the Vanderbilt Beach Association, and he's real tough on
these things. And I think once he understood the situation and as I
understand it -- and I've always considered variances on an individual
basis, and that's why I support this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
Any other-- with that, I will close the public participation part of the
item. And we've got a motion; we've got a second. Any other
discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have 4 to 1 with Commissioner
Coyle being the dissenting vote. Thank you.
Item #7C
RESOLUTION 2002-91 RE PETITION CU-200 I-AR- 1255,
DONALD J. MURRAY OF COMMUNICATIONS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. REPRESENTING THE
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,
REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 13 OF THE "E" ESTATES
ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE
FOR A COMMUNICATION TOWER FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 95 13TM STREET SW AT THE INTERSECTION OF
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND 13TM STREET SW-
Page 63
February 12, 2002
ADOPTED
Okay. The next item has to do with Collier County Emergency
Medical Services and a communication tower. Would all those
people that wish to participate, please stand at this time to be sworn
in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Disclosure on the part of the
commissioners, starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to the Golden Gate fire
chief on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have not spoken with anyone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I haven't spoken with anyone.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And no disclosures from myself.
And with that, go ahead.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner, the Collier County Emergency
Management Services, EMS, is requesting a conditional use for an
essential service to allow for a communication tower on their Golden
Gate Estate emergency management location. The conditional uses
will enable the applicant to erect a communication tower with a
maximum height of 145 feet. The tower will be used for emergency
management purposes as well as for a proposed use by several
cellular telephone companies.
The proposed tower is a monopole flagpole design, and it's
proposed to be approximately 450 feet from an existing
communication tower located and used by the Collier County Golden
Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. The existing tower on the fire
Page 64
February 12, 2002
station site is approximately at this location. The proposed monopole
design is designed to look like a flagpole. It will be located on the
eastern end of the site with the service facility located to the -- to the
north.
The site does not impact any environmentally sensitive
wetlands; therefore, no environmental impact statement was required
for this conditional use. The traffic impact study indicates that this
conditional use would only result in an additional ten trips at the
most.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition
on January 17th, and they recommended by a vote of 6 to 2 to
approve -- recommend approval of the conditional use. The two
commissioners opposing the conditional use felt that due to the
location so close to the Golden Gate Fire Rescue tower, that maybe
there was some way to get services needed by EMS on that tower. It
was discussed during that meeting that it was very difficult or
impossible to locate on that other tower due to leases and contracts
for services, and they could not get at the height they needed to make
their system work.
There was also discussion among the planning commissioners
that space on this tower would be reserved for fire and rescue uses
only or -- or excuse me -- EMS uses only and that any private
company leasing space on there could be bumped off if needed by
government services in the future. However, that would be breaking
leases and be very difficult to enforce. So the -- the commissioners
voting for the request of a conditional use did not agree with that, and
they felt that it complied with all the criteria for a conditional use,
and they recommended approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions of staff? Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just wondering, being
Page 65
February 12, 2002
that this is 450 feet away from the Golden Gate Fire District tower,
number one, will one interfere with the other? And I noticed in here
someplace that it said if it does, they'd mitigate. Does that mean that
they were going to slap money at the matter, and that would make it
go away, or does -- how do you mitigate interferences, especially if
it's an emergency?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That is a stipulation for approval, that
there would not be any-- if this tower did cause interference with
that, that they'd find some way to mitigate it whether it's eliminating
one of the users that's causing the interference or making some other
electronic improvements to allow for that. But I think the petitioner
here can better able explain those other--
MR. MURRAY: Thank you. For the record, I'm Don Murray
with Communication Development Services, and I also want to
mention that Ms. Diane Flagg is here with EMS, and Assistant
County Attorney Tom Palmer is here.
A few things. The FCC also regulates interference, so if there
are issues, there are avenues that you can go through to resolve any of
those issues. The companies that usually occupy these towers work
very hard to make sure the equipment's kept in tune, if you want to
call it, and not causing interference.
The other thing is that there is the stipulation added to the
conditional use and also the lease language that was worked out
between EMS. And Nextel also addresses interference. It says, If the
lessee is unable to eliminate such interference caused by it within a
reasonable period of time, lessee agrees to decommission those parts
of the lessee facilities which are causing said interference. So yes,
the answer is if they do cause interference, it will be shut down.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: After we spent the money putting
it up there.
MR. MURRAY: I'm sure that EMS will not cause any
Page 66
February 12, 2002
interference with their equipment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we assuming that they
won't?
MR. MURRAY: Are we assuming? I believe, based on the
discussions that I've had with the engineers, that EMS will not cause
interference.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a reason why we can't use
the existing antenna?
MR. MURRAY: The -- well, the primary reason that EMS
needs this tower at this height is that they're trying to implement their
EMS 91 1 hard-copy dispatch service, so they need to get some height
in some positions to communicate effectively with the other stations.
The other reason we can't use the tower is because, as Ray stated
earlier, certain positions on the existing tower are already taken with
long-term leases. There's no -- we had that discussion at the Planning
Commission. There's no way to bump anybody off the existing tower
to make room.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What -- what is this flagpole going
to look like when we have all the equipment on it?
MR. MURRAY: Well, this is not exactly to scale. I don't know
how well that's coming out, but this is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also notice that in the literature
that was supplied to us, it says that it would function as a flagpole,
but it didn't say it would be used as a flagpole. Will this be supplied
with all the hardware, and will we have a guarantee that this structure
will be used as a flagpole on a daily basis?
MR. MURRAY: Yes, it will be, and flags will be supplied.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the equipment is not going to
be visible on this flagpole.
MR. MURRAY: No.
Page 67
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be internal to--
MR. MURRAY: It'll be internal. It's, like, a cylinder, and the
antennas are inside.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other questions of staff?.
Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Don Murray, and he's speaking now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's it?
MR. MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I'll close the public
participation. Commissioners, what's your pleasure?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coletta,
it's your district, and I don't know how you feel about another tower
out in Golden Gate Estates. I'm sure you have contacted your--
communications with your constituents and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I have been in continuous talk
with the constituents out there. The resentment against the flagpole is
minimal, not quite as strong as it was against the tower that the five
fire department put up, which is quite evident against the skyline. I
-- as we all know, we're all asking for better cell phone service,
better services no matter where we go. And these towers are a fact of
life, and whenever we can do something that's going to add a plus
and display the American flag on a daily basis at an intersection that
has so many government facilities, I think it would be a plus. And in
that case, since we're that far along with it, I will make the motion for
approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion?
With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 68
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. Thank you.
Commissioner Carter, if I tend to leave you out of this discussion,
you're just going to have to speak up.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No problem. I've never had any
difficulty with speaking up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can attest to that.
Item #8A
PUD-2000-22 WILLIAM L. HOOVER, OF HOOVER PLANNING
AND WAYNE ARNOLD OF Q. GRADY MINOR &
ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING PINE RIDGE
REDEVELOPMENT GROUP, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
"RSF-4" RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND "C-1"
PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO "PUD"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO KNOWN AS
GOODLETTE CORNERS PUD ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD -
CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 26, 2002
Okay. We're going to go on now to the advertised public
hearings, and the first one there is the Pine Ridge Redevelopment
Group requesting a rezone from SF-4 (sic), residential single family
to a C-1 professional commercial district. And with that, I'm going to
need all those who wish to participate to stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll start with disclosures
starting with this end, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have spoken to Mr. -- oh,
gosh, the developer. I'm afraid I -- and Wayne Arnold and read all of
the things that -- I've received e-mails and information from others on
Page 69
February 12, 2002
this, as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to the petitioner and the
representative and also received a couple e-mails, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have spoken with the
commissioner-- the petitioner and his representatives. I have
received several e-mails, and I have also talked with a group of about
30 to 40 property owners in the area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have met with the petitioner
and have received several e-mails on both sides of the issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also have met with the
petitioner and his attorneys and received e-mails on the issue. And
with that, go ahead, Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner
is requesting a rezone of the subject 8.52-acre site from the RSF-4
and C-1 zoning districts to a planned unit development to be known
as Goodlette Comers PUD. As you can see on the visualizer, the
subject site is located on the southwest comer of Pine Ridge Road
and Goodlette-Frank Road. The PUD is proposed to be developed in
three tracts.
As you can see on this aerial, the existing site contains some
existing C-1 uses in the C-1 zoning district. However, these are
nonconforming uses, and some of them are found in the C-5 zoning
district. There's some existing single-family homes along the
frontage road here, and to the north is the RSF-1 zoning district. We
have an approved commercial PUD in the northeast comer. To the
south is Sorrento Gardens, and there's an existing hotel and restaurant
developed on the western side of the property.
The master plan indicates that there will be three development
Page 70
February 12, 2002
tracts, Tracts A, B and C. Tract A the petitioner proposes to have a
-- a ministorage facility that'll be architecturally designed
eliminating garage doors. That will look more like an office. There's
an architectural theme requirement for this project. And Areas B and
C are limited to 45 feet in height, not to exceed three stories, and
they're proposed for a mix of C-1 through C-3 uses. There are -- the
PUD does allow for some additional uses that may be found in either
C-4 and C-5, but they're low intensity uses, and staff has deemed
them to be acceptable in meeting the purpose and intent of the
commercial infill criteria.
The traffic impact statement indicates that the project will
generate approximately 4,900 trips on a weekday. The transportation
department has indicated that this will not have a significant impact
on the Pine Ridge Road or Goodlette-Frank Road or any other county
road within the project's radius of development influence, and
therefore, it is found consistent with the transportation element
policies.
The subject site is located on the Future Land Use Map. As you
can see, it's outside the activity center. So therefore, to allow for
commercial rezoning to occur on this site, it has to be consistent with
the office and infill criteria contained in the Land Development Code
and the Growth Management Plan. And I've listed the criteria in the
executive summary for you.
Basically, the site abuts a collector road and arterial roads,
which are -- Pine Ridge and Goodlette-Frank Road -- Goodlette-
Frank Road qualify as. It's less than 12 acres in size. The site abuts
commercial zoning. There's an existing commercial PUD to the
west. The depth of the site does not exceed the depth of abutting
commercial properties. The parcel was not created to take advantage
of the office and infill criteria. This is an existing plat of lots. The
City of Naples has potential hookup for central public water and
Page 71
February 12, 2002
sewer to serve the project, and the project is compatible with the
existing and future land uses, given the fact that there's commercial
zoning on one side and commercial zoning in the northeast corner--
or northwest -- yeah, northeast corner.
The one criteria that the comprehensive planning department
had some concern about is consistency with the intent, that staff has
interpreted the low intensity commercial uses to include those uses
contained in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts. And, as I
mentioned, there are a few uses within the PUD such as travel
agency, which is within C-5. The miniwarehouses proposed for the
Tract A is also found in C-5. However, with the architectural
treatments and -- and restrictions on garage doors, staff felt those
could be more suitable for, and meeting the intent of, this criteria for
the office and infill, and the uses that are generally found within the
PUD are deemed consistent with that criteria. So 'staff is
recommending that this petition be found consistent with the Future
Land Use Element.
The subject site does not impact any environmentally sensitive
wetlands or jurisdictional wetland areas. So therefore, the -- no
environmental impact statement was required for this project, and it
did not have to go to the EA -- Environmental Advisory Council
meeting.
On January 3rd this petition went to the Collier County Planning
Commission, and they voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of this
petition and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with
that recommendation. However, they did make some additional
stipulations. One was concerning the -- the lake or borrow pit that's
located on the subject site. Back to the aerial, as you can see, there is
a large borrow pit area that serves as a lake now. This lake is not
needed or intended to be used for any water management purposes.
It's really not a necessary functioning component of the development
Page 72
February 12, 2002
of the site. So therefore, the petitioner requests the ability to modify
the lake size or eliminate it, if necessary, to serve the type of
development that may be proposed in the future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I stop you for just a second? I
read someplace in here that it said it was spring fed. Is the borrow pit
spring fed?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it could be, depending on the source of
the water that's filling it. It is a -- was created as a borrow pit. The
Planning Commission determined that the lake was not necessary for
any environmental reasons or for water management reasons, and so
they agreed with the petitioner that it could be filled in and
completely eliminated. Therefore, they recommended some
additional landscaping requirements to be placed on the southern
property line, which would require a 6-foot-tall fence, and additional
landscaping, which has now been incorporated into the PUD
document.
Staff has received numerous calls and -- and concerns raised
from residents from Sorrento Gardens to the south. Some of them
concerned access to this particular site and also what would happen
with the lake. A lot of them felt that it's a nice environmental -- or
amenity for their community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows, if they do -- if this is
approved and they go forward, how many years would it be before
they got to develop in the area where the lake is? Or you probably
don't know the answer to that. I'll ask the petitioner when the time
comes.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd be happy to answer any other questions.
That basically is -- the concerns raised by the residents were pretty
much addressed by the way of access that is determined by the
Collier County Access Management Plan, and the petitioner has no
real leeway of determining how those access points are to be
Page 73
February 12, 2002
developed, and that would be determined at the time of site
development plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have one question concerning
building heights. I understand that the base reference height for
measuring building height is the flood plane evaluation. MR. BELLOWS: That's the start, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and what is that evaluation
at the present time in that area?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that information offhand. It's -- it
varies throughout the county. We'd have to check the Zoning Atlas
Map, and it'll list the flood elevation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're talking about three-
story buildings --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that can go up to --
MR. BELLOWS: 45 feet on Tracts A and B and 50 feet on Tract
A. Tract A is closest to the hotel site. The hotel site's over here. Tract
A would be in here. The hotel site has an existing structure that's
approximately 45 feet in height.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's not the total height of
the building.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the code allows the building heights to
be measured depending on the roof type, if it's a flat roof versus a hip
roof, which is measured to the average mean point at that point. And
we also allow -- the code also allows for mechanical equipment
rooms to be stored above that maximum height limit because they're
uninhabitable space.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what would that be as far as
total height is concerned?
MR. BELLOWS: If they design a building that incorporated a
Page 74
February 12, 2002
mechanical room, it could put 12 feet above that, so probably 62 feet
would be a maximum point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So 62 feet --
MR. BELLOWS: Possible.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- is the possible maximum height,
but the number of stories is limited to three stories? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the other things I wanted to
talk about was in the permitted uses, the list of permitted uses, some
of them have to do with a lot of traffic. And I was thinking being that
this -- this particular area is already so congested, would we be able
to limit some of those uses so that we don't encourage heavy traffic
uses?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, we could discuss that issue with the
petitioner. And depending on the type of use and the traffic
generation, I think staff could support a request to eliminate certain
uses, especially those that tend to be in the C-4 or C-5 category.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it might be beneficial if we
were to hear from Dawn Wolfe at this time as far as the -- well, we'll
come to that, but I want to hear about the traffic and the impact that
this would have, positive or negative, as far as the traffic in the area
would be.
MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning department
director, for the record. The impacts this has is in some ways
positive, in some ways negative. From a positive aspect, we have
multiple access points along this frontage, which every time you have
an access point, you create some additional friction and take away
from the roadway capacity. Under a consolidated plan and as it
develops, this parcel could have interconnectivity that would reduce
the need for addition -- for that multitude of access points and
consolidate them down into ones which function more uniformly and
Page 75
February 12, 2002
allow traffic to go between land uses in this area versus having to exit
back out onto Goodlette to come back in. In other ways, yes, it will
have higher traffic volumes entering and exiting the site than single-
family homes. Although there is some intensity of use already at the
comer of Goodlette and Pine Ridge, there will be an increase in
traffic that could come from this site.
Issues in regards to how -- whether or not the traffic coming off
of the site would be significant or insignificant and whether or not
they would hit some of our more constrained roadway segments has
been brought up. The -- because we have six laned Pine Ridge Road
there where the primary amount of access would be coming and
going from, we are not, by virtue of-- the potential trips at the higher
land use intensities is how it was calculated, not with things like self-
storage, which is a very low intensity trip generator and one of the
primary uses they're looking at -- does not hit that proverbial trigger
of 5 percent in determining whether or not something is or isn't
significant because once it accesses onto Pine Ridge Road, it
immediately can disperse onto three other legs of roadway. And at
that time it spreads out to the point of where we are less than 5
percent.
None of the roadways have been deemed deficient in these
sections because we have the road construction improvement plan for
Goodlette-Frank Road to the north, a current deficiency as it exists
today, however, programmed to be let for construction in the current
fiscal year. The section east of the Goodlette-Frank intersection with
Pine Ridge Road has been defined as constrained. We are at a six-
lane section right there. However, we are currently operating at
Level of Service D with an adopted standard of E. We are
anticipating to be able to maintain that adopted level-of-service
standard within the build out period of these parcels. Therefore, A,
it's not a deficient segment, but once again, we are not significant on
Page 76
February 12, 2002
that segment, either, by virtue of the ability to be able to distribute the
traffic, once it exits that site, onto three other roadway segments in
this area.
So it's going to have some traffic coming and going from it. Is
it going to be significant and adverse? Based on what we have out
there today, it does not meet the litmus test of being significant and
adverse to the system, and that's why we will evaluate exactly what
happens there and the best way to handle the operational movements
when we know exactly what's coming forward, and that'll be at the
site development plan stage. We have numerous changes to the Land
Development Code that will ensure our ability and opportunity to
have the cross access between parcels, but we can't really determine
that or what kind of site improvements need to be made for access
until we have the specific land use coming in for site approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's one problem that -- that
has been expressed by the residents to the south of this proposed
development, and I'm sure it's of concern to the petitioner himself,
and that is traffic circulation and the fact that there will not be any
guarantee of access points for this -- this property until such time as a
site plan comes in for approval; is that correct?
MS. WOLFE: The site access will be consistent with the access
policy in place at the time a site plan comes forward, so there is a
level of guarantee as long as we were looking at applying the rules.
And we have a set of standards, so to say that they have absolutely no
guarantee is -- is, I think, going to the extreme. They have, you
know, certain limitations that we've already set forth in an access
control policy. Those are the standards by which they can look at
how to develop their site to meet those standards. So those are the
access criteria that they have to work with, so those are givens. And
Page 77
February 12, 2002
so to say that they have no guarantees -- everyone has a right of
access to their properties. It's the degree to which they can enjoy
those access points. Median controls are not a private land use right.
They are a feature and function of the roadway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can you give me your--
your anticipated traffic flow pattern? What would -- how would you
expect traffic to enter and depart from -- from this development?
MS. WOLFE: The primary entering and exiting traffic will be
from eastbound movements along Pine Ridge Road or southbound
movements through the Pine Ridge/Goodlette Road intersection and
departing in the same manner. Until we have -- know exactly what's
going to go on here, I can't anticipate traffic movements other than
those I just described.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That means that traffic exiting
from this property onto Pine Ridge Road can only go eastward.
MS. WOLFE: Their direct movement will most likely be an
eastbound movement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then -- then the only way that one
can get from this property going westward on Pine Ridge Road to 41
would be to go down to the intersection of Goodlette, turn south on
Goodlette, go through a median cut, do a U-turn, come back to the
intersection of Goodlette and Pine Ridge, then turn left, and go west
on -- on Pine Ridge Road. Or the other alternative is to go south on
Goodlette -- turn right on -- on Pine Ridge, go south on Goodlette to
one of the residential streets, and cut through to U.S. 41. I -- I don't
think either of those is an acceptable traffic pattern for any use of this
property, and-- and I'm wondering what can be done to resolve that
problem and what ideas you might have with respect to that.
MS. WOLFE: Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific answer
until I know what's going to go there. And since there is a multitude
of opportunities for different types of land use, then whoever comes
Page 78
February 12, 2002
into develop a specific land use is going to look at what kind of
traffic they're going to be able to capture. We have a very sparse grid
system. That means that certain movements are going to necessitate
either U-turns or, if the movement needs to be back towards 41, they
may, instead of doing a U-turn, go up Goodlette-Frank Road and
come across Vanderbilt or perhaps through the public street system,
which may also coincide with residential neighborhoods.
Those are opportunities that are out there. These are public
streets that are out there. They do provide for some level of through
movement, but I can't tell you exactly what traffic is going to go
where. And even at the time the site plan comes in with the specific
land use, it is still a best estimate of where they're going to go.
The amount of trips we estimate coming in and out will be looked at
to see -- if it's a high, intense land use3 we may not recommend that
they have, you know, a substantial access because of problems that
can occur with them.
Gas stations, fast-food restaurants in particular, you want to
keep them out and away from our intersections, have internal access
to them, and keep those movements as far away from turn lanes and
other operational functions of the intersections because they're some
of the greatest problems. Although they don't actually add new -- a
lot of new trips to the road, a lot of that traffic is pass-by traffic and
traffic from the existing flow, their problems arise in the significant
changes of movement that they create to the system, and they become
more of an operational problem. So it's very difficult to tell you
exactly what would happen where since there's too much to choose
from here to say what's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two other questions. One is, is it
reasonable to expect that we could put a -- a traffic light at some
portion along Pine Ridge Road there to permit traffic coming out of
the development to turn left and go west on Pine Ridge Road? And
Page 79
February 12, 2002
then I have a follow-up question.
MS. WOLFE: As one of-- one of the specific individuals who
has been looking at ways to regain and recapture capacity on our
roadways, I would say that is the least likely thing that will occur
along this frontage, is the installation of an actual traffic signal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, some of the residents have
said that they've been told that the median cuts south of Goodlette
Road are likely to be closed. Is there any plan to do this?
MS. WOLFE: We have our construction plans for Goodlette-
Frank Road, which do extend to the south. We have identified
conflicts with the need of our turns lanes going north as well as the
storage length for the through lanes, and I do believe that we
anticipate the closure of the Northgate Drive median opening at such
time as we construct those improvements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so that means that the -- that
all of the traffic that might wish to go westbound from this
development would go to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge intersection, turn
-- turn right and go southbound until they could find a median cut, do
a U-turn, come back to the intersection, and then turn left.
MS. WOLFE: Not necessarily. They may --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's the other alternative?
MS. WOLFE: They may come also to that intersection and do a
U-turn at that intersection under a signalized control, which is a safe
and appropriate movement in that location. That is where we will
look at where the access points are in reference to those turn lanes to
make sure that we don't have a substantial amount of weaving
opportunity that would create a safety problem.
As I said, until we know exactly what's going to happen there,
all of this is very speculative. And that's why we don't want to put
such levels of specificity into access points, site-related
improvements until we know exactly what's going in here because we
Page 80
February 12, 2002
do not want to tie our hands and make a wrong decision now without
the right level of detail of information.
COMMISSIONERCOYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- you know, I do have a
concern about the uses and intensity and increasing the traffic on
there. And just to say it -- the commercial zonings -- it doesn't mean
the higher commercial zonings, the higher traffic impacts that we
have. Like Dawn mentioned, a drive-in restaurant or a gas station is
more of a impact than self-storage as far as traffic. So that's really
the only thing I'm really concerned about of this proposal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm concerned about that, too,
that we limit those high intensity uses. But going back to
Commissioner Coyle's questions, something that I guess has been
begged to be asked for quite some time, don't U-turns clog up traffic,
tie up traffic, and cause more accidents than just giving us a cut in the
median so that we can go in and out of an area more safely?
MS. WOLFE: No, ma'am. Quite the opposite is -- is the case.
There have been studies conducted where it's been found that by
forcing a vehicle to only cut across three lanes instead of six lanes of
traffic and then make a controlled U-turn is much safer than having
someone just try and cut across traffic in its entirety. And, no, it does
not take away from your capacity.
We just need -- we just need to make sure that we design into
any improvements we make the correct storage length to account for
the number of vehicles that will turn, because the gaps that are
created when the traffic lights turn are the opportunity for individuals
to make a safe turn because they're not having to look both ways.
When they exit alls they have to do is look to one direction, the
traffic -- the direction that they'll be traveling in. Once they come to
Page 81
February 12, 2002
the location to do a U-mm, they will only need to be looking at the
traffic that is approaching them. They don't have conflicting views
that they have to make sure that they look left, right, and left again
before they make that movement out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I want to throw in one more
thing. How come when you limit them to only U-ies, then aft -- for
all of the next U-y tums, it says "no U-mm"; so you have to keep
traveling up, up, up, up, up in order to make a U-mm?
MS. WOLFE: That's -- those are the types of issues that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Frustrate you.
MS. WOLFE: -- the transportation department is looking into to
make sure instead of having a lot of individual directional lefts in,
that we have more consolidated access points so that you don't have
to have this multitude of U-turn here, no U-turn here, left tums only
here. We have a mishmash out there, and one of the items that we'll
be doing is retaking the capacity out there, and that will probably
include a lot of median modifications where some people who may
enjoy a median opening today will not in the future as we regain the
capacity that we have left on our constrained facilities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then are you going to -- all that
said, are you going to let us make U-tums when you forced us to do
that, or are we going to have signs posted, "no U-turn," for the next
three or four--
MS. WOLFE: U-tums are a necessity that will have to be built
into the system, and right now we just have so many breaks, there's
not enough room to do them. We need to come back and do
modifications to our current system to allow for that safe level of U-
turning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll get off the subject now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Dawn, correct me if I'm wrong, but
generally these places where U-tums are acceptable, there's usually a
Page 82
February 12, 2002
traffic control light there that gives you a left mm so that when you're
making it, you don't have any traffic coming from the opposite way.
This seems to be the case in the majority of the time. Is this true, or
is there six-lane highways out there that have no light that allow for
U-tums?
MS. WOLFE: There are many locations, and we are actually
designing into some of our roadways, such as Livingston Road, the
fact that you'll have to make a U-turn versus everyone getting a full
median access point, that you're going to have a right-in, right-out
and have to go up the street a quarter of a mile to make a U-turn, and
those will not be under signal control. Because you're only dealing
with looking for gaps from one direction of flow, those can safely be
made between the gaps created by the signalized intersections
upstream from where you're going to be making --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I never realized how fortunate I am
to be the commissioner of a district that has so little worries about
left-hand tums. We'd like to have more four-laned roads, by the way,
so we could have that problem, but we'll get to that later.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you still need to get to the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. I think we're ready for the
petitioner now. You thought you were never going to get your
chance, right,
Rich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I had a feeling I would get my chance.
For the record --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll give you three minutes. Go
ahead.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, thank you, and I hope you'll vote
for approval. For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the
petitioner. With me is Wayne Arnold, the planner on the project;
Page 83
February 12, 2002
Bob Soudan, who has much of the property under contract to
purchase; Dean Smith, who is our traffic engineer who can
supplement whatever Dawn has provided you; and also Bruce
Anderson, who represents a portion -- a property owner who owns a
portion of the property, who does not need to speak unless I forget to
put things in the record that he's requested that I put in the record.
I do want to get a couple of things in the record. First of all,
I have a -- an e-mail correspondence between Wayne Arnold and
Stan Chrzanowski regarding the lake issue and the ability to fill in the
lake. Mr. Chrzanowski's e-mail confirms that as least as far back as
1940, the soils map show that that lake was not there at the time, so it
is a borrow pit. And Mr. Chrzanowski explains that the process, it's a
county permit to go ahead and fill that borrow pit, and that has been
done in the past. So the lake, slash, borrow pit, whatever you want to
call it, can be filled by a county permit, has been -- that has been
done on other occasions, and so I hope that we can eliminate that
issue from discussion regarding at least the legal right to fill in the
lake.
The lake is wholly within -- or a majority of which, except for
some of the bank, is on our clients' property and can be filled in.
The water is on our clients' property. And we have from the very
beginning, in our meetings with the residents and in front of the
Planning Commission, expressed to the property owners that they
should anticipate that that entire lake will be filled for development
on the property.
And I would like to enter into the record also a copy of the
Planning Commission meeting minutes, and I've tabbed all of the
different pages where that item came up and where we said to the
Planning Commission we intended to fill the lake completely so that
their decision to recommend approval was, in fact, based upon our
confirming on the record that the lake could be filled completely.
Page 84
February 12, 2002
And, in fact, the motion to approve the PUD included, amongst other
things, the clarification to the water management section of the PUD
that the lake would -- it could potentially be filled completely and not
just partially.
So I just want to -- I bring that to the board's attention because
we have been up front right from the beginning about the issue of the
lake, who owns it, what may happen to the lake. And we're sensitive
to -- to the residents who have enjoyed the view of this lake for many
years. However, the people who own the property on which the lake
is located, it's their lake, they've been paying taxes on that lake, and
they have the right and -- the legal right to fill that lake in as we --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may ask a question at this time, I
don't dispute your ownership of the lake and your rights to be able to
do reasonable things with it. But is there any possibility that we
might come to an agreement if you're not planning to build until X
number of years, that the lake will remain as such until that point in
time that you're ready to start construction so the neighbors won't be
unduly imposed upon with it just being filled in and forgotten?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We -- we anticipate that the lake
will be filled in phases. And as you will see from the master plan,
there's a Parcel A, a Parcel B, and a Parcel C. Parcel A is where the
indoor self-storage is scheduled to go. And we -- you can see from
the master plan that only a portion of the lake needs to be filled for
that phase of the project. We -- we will be happy to work with the
neighbors to make sure that we leave the lake there until, you know,
Area B gets developed, if that's what you're talking about,
Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I'm talking about.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But I want to do -- go through briefly
the history of where -- how we got to where we are. As you can see
from the master plan and your staff report, this property is 12 single-
Page 85
February l2,2002
family home lots and the -- the C-1 commercial lot. There are 1 1
separate property owners. It was no simple task to get all 1 1 property
owners to agree to a unified PUD with uniform buffering standards,
uniform architectural standards, and agreeing that as each phase is
developed, that there will be interconnection of the properties. And,
in fact, the PUD document requires interconnection of all of the
areas.
And I just want to clear for the record -- clarify for the record,
that is as each parcel develops, there will be interconnection of all of
the parcels. So you will be able to eliminate and minimize the
current access points on Pine Ridge Road. In addition, you'll get turn
lanes into the project that you don't currently have, so there'll be less
friction -- I hope I'm using that term right -- as Ms. Wolf has pointed
out. So we have -- we've gotten a lot of people together to agree to
the standards and the types of uses that can be made on the property.
There have been other attempts to try to do this, and they've been
unsuccessful. And I hate to say -- I hate to see this attempt go -- go
by the wayside if we cannot get the PUD approved.
The planned uses -- and we've been up front, again, with all the
property owners -- is we know Mr. Soudan plans on doing an indoor
self-storage project on about 2 acres of the property. He is currently
the developer of an indoor self-storage site in the City of Naples in
the Gateway Shopping Center across from the -- from the mall, yeah,
the Coastland Center. So he -- he has a track record. He's developed
-- these are family owned and operated self-storage. It's not a
national chain that will be coming in.
This is the proposed architecture for this site. We've gone --
we've worked through these architectural renderings with your staff.
I can put a smaller scale one in the record or give you all a copy if
you would like your individual copy, whatever you wish. But we've
worked through this. Obviously this is what fronts Pine Ridge Road.
Page 86
February 12, 2002
You will see that we don't have a -- a bunch of storage bays visible to
Pine Ridge Road. I think that is very aesthetically pleasing. You
probably can't even tell that the access point of the building is right
here. You go in, the door goes up, the door comes down, you unload
in front of a manned or personed reception desk for security
purposes. So it is limited access to the -- to the building.
There are some storage areas on the ground floor on the sides of
the building. People will store their vehicles over the winter. It's
garage-type parking. The unit itself, inside the building everything is
carpeted, including the units themselves are carpeted, so it is a -- it's a
non-noise producer. It also is, as you know, a very low intensity
traffic use, so it is a good use to have here on Pine Ridge Road
because of the low traffic generation of this site. Unfortunately, the
whole site can't be developed as a self-storage. There's just not that
demand, but at least having a portion of it developed is -- is a benefit
to the community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rich, before you move on,
question. Does that -- you're saying that that is a -- a garage door that
goes up during -- in the front?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right here. It's glass. It's glass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that meet architectural
standards?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We have run this entire thing by your --
your architect on staff, and this is where we are on the -- on the
building with their input. We've -- as a matter of fact, we've been
even asked to bring, I believe, the -- the roof at -- a higher roof. The
mansards, we've been asked to increase the size of those, by your
architect. For Commissioner Coyle's benefit, this is approximately
38 feet to the parapet, and then 43 feet with the mansard as designed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Refuse the request of the architect
to increase the height of the --
Page 87
February 12, 2002
MR. YOVANOVICH: Excuse me? Well, what was it, a 3-foot
difference? We can -- I mean, if you want to bring it down 3 feet,
we'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thirty-eight feet is what you said?
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the parapet right here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're looking, like,
maybe another 5 feet for so.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're about 43 feet to here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I may continue, please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess if we're going to
approve this, my concern is that it does meet architectural standards,
and we do submit this for the public record so that the public knows
what this is going to look like.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you would like to make it part of the
PUD, we're happy to make this exhibit as part of the PUD for the
indoor self-storage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And can we have some kind of
a theme throughout that whole PUD?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We are required-- our PUD provides for
a common architectural theme, same color, same type of roofing, so
that's already in the PUD. We will be setting the standard for the
remainder of the PUD. I mean, not every building's going to look
like that, but it'll have common architecture. The theme will be
carried out throughout the entire PUD, and that's one of the benefits
of going the PUD route versus just straight zoning this to a C-4 or C-
3 use. You can -- you can require us through the PUD to enhance the
architecture, which I think we have done.
We have also, in meeting with the residents -- the original plan
-- the original -- our original meeting with the residents was with
Page 88
February 12, 2002
the residents fronting or backing onto our project and the people
across the street from them. We did two neighborhood meetings
before you even had required neighborhood meetings because we
knew there was going to be an issue regarding the lake, and we
wanted to let them know what was going on.
At our initial meeting, which was November 5th, we brought out
a landscape buffer because we thought the landscape buffer was the
alternative the residents would prefer. The residents told us they
would prefer a wall for security reasons and also to block the light of
the cars. So what we did is we then went and said, "Okay. Here's
what the county requirements are if you do the wall alternative
instead of the vegetated buffer." Our client did not like the county
minimum requirements, did not even propose those minimum
requirements.
Instead our client proposed -- we haven't practiced our routine
well enough here. We proposed this as the architectural -- I mean,
this as the landscape buffer, this wall and the increased vegetative
buffer of the staggered cabbage palms or similar. I trust that Ray got
that description into the PUD document. And that is on the entire
southern boundary of the property. It goes from the beginning all the
way to Goodlette-Frank Road, so that will eventually -- as the phase
is completed, that is the buffer you will see. And this landscape
rendering is based upon someone being on their property 25 feet from
our building -- I'm sorry -- 25 feet from the property line. So that is
the line of sight of our proposed building from those who abut our
building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you show that to the
audience? Does the audience have a chance to see this?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It's on the visualizer, I believe, or
whatever, the TV monitors. And that is what we showed the
residents when we met with them, and that is what we showed the
Page 89
February 12, 2002
Planning Commission when we had the meeting with the Planning
Commission. So I think what we have -- what we have done is we
have been sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors, have tried to
give them something that is visually appealing. And, you know, I
can't replace the lake, but I can do the best I can. And I think that's
above and beyond what is required, and that is in the PUDs and will
be -- it's a requirement that we meet -- we do that.
We've even offset the wall onto our property, so it's 5 feet back
from their property line. It appears as if they get another 5 feet to
their yard, even though they don't have legal title. We back it up, and
we put some low level plantings on their side. And they'll have to
water and sprinkle it, but that's -- that's what we have proposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. Did you say they'll
have to water it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They'll have to water what's on their side
of the fence. We really prefer not to go onto their property to -- to
maintain that, and I don't think really that'll be really an issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rich, before you go on, what --
the plantings on the -- in the 5 foot on the residential side, is there
going to be any guarantee by you that -- the longevity of it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, we can -- we'll plant them, and
it's up to really -- if they don't water them, there's, you know, not
much I can do. I mean, if they're properly maintained, usually
landscape companies have a warranty for a brief period.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Isn't that still your property, though?
I mean, if the sprinkler line went under the fence or didn't go
underneath the fence, what difference would it make? You're going
to have to water the other side of the fence. Am I correct or wrong?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's correct. We'll have to water
one side. But, you know, we'd have to run parallel lines, and then
we'd have to get on their property if there's a problem and dig it up, if
Page 90
February 12, 2002
there's a problem with the irrigation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's their side of the fence, but it's
still your property.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. But it's-- it's 5 feet. And then, you
know, with the plantings already in there, we will be -- we won't be
able to, you know, stay on the 5 feet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So if they want to run a sprinkler
system, they have to come and get permission from you and run it
onto your property and--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. I mean, which won't be an issue.
That won't be an issue. If they wanted to put --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, we'll -- we will give them an
easement if they need an easement for purposes of putting their own
underground irrigation, or they could simply, you know, water it with
a hose and water, you know, or run a sprinkler that does that. I mean,
we're -- we're trying to accommodate the request we had, which was
to back the fence up onto our property, and -- and that's what we've
done. I mean, it becomes a maintenance issue for us if we have to
come onto their property to take care of all of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe we could, when we have
the opportunity for public input, get the residents' reaction to that
proposal.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And ifI may, Commissioner, the Land
Development Code requires landscaping on both sides of the fence
and that they would be required to water and maintain the plants on
both sides of the fence. What they're proposing is to shift the fence
even closer to the property line and eliminate the maintenance on one
side. I don't think that's acceptable to staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You think it is or is not?
MR. BELLOWS: I do not believe that staff would support such
Page 91
February 12, 2002
a concept.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's -- okay. I mean, maybe that's
changed since the last meeting we had at the Planning Commission
where this very proposal was made, that we back the fence off the
property line to give the property owners what they prefer. We did
this as an accommodation of the property owners. We did not want --
they did not want the fence right on their property line. We'll -- you
know, we can work through that issue if we need to.
Traffic, Dawn, I think, did an excellent job of explaining that,
yeah, there will be trips on the -- on Pine Ridge Road. It's kind of--
it's kind of interesting; at times we hear it's a great -- the grid system
is a great thing because people can get off of the main roads and wind
through the neighborhoods to get to other main roads, and then other
times we get smacked with that happening because people may go
through the grid system and go off of-- off of the main roads.
I -- we have -- some suggestions might be, you know, we could
put some, you know, clear signage up on some of the roads that
clearly do not go through to U.S. 41 that say-- that says that, "no
through way to U.S. 41." Hopefully that will discourage some of the
people not to use those particular streets, and then we'll focus them
on the streets that do go directly from Goodlette-Frank Road to 41. I
mean, that's something we can do to discourage using of the
neighborhoods and maybe speed bumps. I mean, I know the
neighbors would like some traffic-calming devices. Long before we
came along, they wanted traffic-calming devices like speed bumps in
their neighborhood. So those may be some things we could do short
of putting a traffic light on Pine Ridge Road, but -- I mean, we'd love
a traffic light on Pine Ridge Road, but I don't see that happening.
I did want to get into the record also, what I -- Mr. Anderson has
told me is some language that I've highlighted that staff has agreed
can go into the PUD. It was previously in the PUD version before
Page 92
February 12, 2002
staff made some revisions after the Planning Commission meeting,
but it now will be part of Section 3.3.C.3. Mr. Bellows, is that
correct, this highlighted language that I'm going to -- I can read it into
the record or just hand it into the record?
MR. BELLOWS' That's correct. And you can hand it into the
record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Ms. Student asked me to mention
that there were a couple of citations to the Land Development Code
that will need to be changed to bring them up to the current code and
also that there's the typical catchall when we -- after you get through
the list of everything, we say "anything comparable." The language
needs to be revised and say that it is "any other commercial use or
professional service which is compatible and deemed comparable in
nature with the foregoing uses." So the PUD needs to be revised
there so you have both hurdles to meet before the -- another use can
go in there.
And Wayne -- Wayne Arnold will take you real briefly through
the site plan, and we will reserve any comments we may have to
respond to the public. But I hope you-all will follow Planning
Commission's recommendation, which was 7-0 in favor of this
proposal with the changes that staff has made to the PUD.
MR. ARNOLD' Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold. And, as
Rich indicated, I think we had a pretty thorough discussion, but I just
wanted to go through the site plan that's on the visualizer and take
you through what we're proposing. As you go from west to east,
Area A is the area adjacent to what's currently Houlihans Restaurant.
We have proposed a future interconnect with their parking lot,
obviously subject to their concurrence and approval, but that, again,
is another transportation enhancement that we're trying hard to
achieve. We show the existing lake, the existing lots, and then we've
divided this into Areas A, B, and C.
Page 93
February 12, 2002
And the access points clearly are conceptual, as Ms. Wolfe has
indicated to you. Phase 1, as we're calling it -- even though the
Shepard parcel on the comer has existing development, we are --
we're here with Bob Soudan, whom I think you've all met. Area A
will probably be the first to develop. That in itself will require us to
reclaim a portion of that lake on the 2 acres, plus or minus, that he
will be developing. That leaves Area B in the middle and then Area
C on the comer for the Shepards. Ultimately you will have
connection between each of these parcels with access to Goodlette-
Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road.
We're also showing once the intersection improvements occur at
Goodlette-Frank Road that the county's working on, the access point
to this project will be shifted to the south. I think it's approximately
50 feet, but that will help with the traffic movements along
Goodlette-Frank Road as well. There are some substantial changes
occurring on both Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road as part
of those intersection improvements. I'm sure many of you are aware
of those, but you're going to have dual mm lanes going northbound
on Goodlette-Frank Road from Pine Ridge Road in the near future.
What that will do is change the existing median opening at East
Avenue that goes into Pine Ridge. You will no longer have a full
median opening, so people exiting East Avenue onto Pine Ridge
Road will only have a right-mm movement there. They will no
longer be allowed to make a left-mm movement across traffic to go
eastbound on Pine Ridge Road. Likewise, your only movement --
and as Dawn Wolfe mentioned to you before, the staggered
movement would be for our potential westbound movements exiting
onto Pine Ridge Road eastbound making a controlled U-mm
movement on a red signal at Pine Ridge Road or, alternately, making
a U-turn at the signal at Pine Ridge Road. Both of those movements
would be safe movements.
Page 94
February 12, 2002
But, again, as Mr. Yovanovich mentioned, we're going to have
uniform architectural standards that will be applicable based on the
first project out of the box, which we believe will be Mr. Soudan's
project. And, again, the color tones, roof types, things of that nature
will be picked up throughout the project. The buffering plan will be a
continuous buffer along the entire southern property boundary.
One of the other things, too, with respect to the traffic issue
that's been raised, I think what we really have is an issue of the need
for maybe some additional traffic calming. I know several families
that live in the Sorrento Gardens neighborhood, and this is not a new
problem. It's been one that's ongoing. I know Granada Boulevard
has had some traffic-calming improvements in the last year or so with
some speed tables there with some additional signage. I don't know
how those are working from the opinion of the transportation
department, but certainly that is one solution. I know it's been used
extensively in the City of Naples as well and quite successfully. So
hopefully that's something that can assist that neighborhood with
their concerns of potential cut-through traffic.
I know that in my travels through there, I would tend to use
something that's signalized, Granada for instance, that extends from
Goodlette-Frank Road all the way over to U.S. 41. People who live
in there use that cut-through, if you will, because it's signalized at
both ends, and you have a controlled movement across U.S. 41 to get
into the Neapolitan Way shops and the Publix shopping center that's
there, etc. So, I mean, I think people try to find the safest and most
direct route.
And certainly going through Pompei, which is the road
immediately south of this project, takes you over to Castello
eventually, which splits and goes two different directions out,
eventually, to U.S. 41, neither of those offering a strong southerly
movement, a very difficult southerly movement on the southern leg
Page 95
February 12, 2002
of Castello. And obviously you can make a northbound movement
on U.S. 41, but again, your only left-turn movement off of U.S. 41
becomes the one at Pine Ridge Road, so I'm not sure that that's a
through movement that a majority of the people would tend to use.
And I don't know what the current traffic counts are, but my
suspicion would be that much of the traffic you get is from actually
the opposite direction, people exiting Newgate Center or one of the
other shops that has access to Castello, people finding their way to
Goodlette-Frank road, not the alternate traffic pattern that would
come from eastbound Pine Ridge movements and then going back to
a westbound movement through the neighborhood.
I'll be happy to answer any questions, and certainly I would -- it
looks like Mr. Yovanovich has another comment.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I always forget something. I have a
letter to enter into the record from one of the current property owners
on Pine Ridge Road and one of the applicants. She still resides there,
and the letter basically states that these homes are not -- you know,
she doesn't even want her kids to go outside and play. I think we've
all seen the -- how close those homes are to the road, that it's really
not a residential neighborhood anymore, that those residences, as
they're currently configured, they're mostly rental properties. The --
making any improvements to those homes doesn't make any sense to
the owner because they cannot get the necessary rents to recoup the
investment in making the improvements. So it's -- it has changed.
The comp plan -- the comprehensive plan recognizes that this
area will be redeveloped, and we're asking -- what we -- I think what
we proposed is a -- a good alternative to what is not the most
attractive location in Collier County. And we would hope, again, that
you will consider the property owners', who own those properties,
point of view as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rich, before you go away, you
Page 96
February 12, 2002
said that you wanted 3.3.3 put into the PUD. Now, is -- is that Land
Development Code language?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That is -- that is 3 -- no. I'm sorry.
That is 3.3 -- is that right? That's what the note to me was.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 3.3.3.C, I think, wasn't it? Isn't
that what you said?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 333.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It should be 3.3(C) is where we would
add it to the PUD, the language that Mr. Bellows has agreed to, and
that addresses what happens if the county needs to realign -- change
the exit point on Goodlette-Frank Road. It addresses being able to --
if they move it further south, there's a currently existing storage area
for the septic tank business that's located there. It just gives them the
authority to move that existing storage area so that they can continue
their operation, and that's what that additional language addresses. It
was in the previous PUD. It was removed by staff because it was
probably in the wrong location, and now it was -- has been moved to
the appropriate location within the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I just finish up here? Is
that Land Development Code language?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That's specific PUD language.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It was language that was in another
section of the PUD that's getting transferred to this section of the
PUD. Sorry about the confusion. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does the staff actually agree with
that condition?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Staff dealing -- because there are
nonconforming structures that are remaining on site and the Land
Page 97
February 12, 2002
Development Code has criteria dealing with nonconformities, that the
language that they're proposing would fit into the Section C, Roman
numeral 3 of the PUD document, 3.3(C), No. 3. That language fits
right in perfectly and is consistent with the intent of dealing with
these nonconforming structures on -- on the site.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One additional question. Mr.
Yovanovich, I'd like for you to help me a little bit on the traffic
analysis, please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What use was assumed to develop
the traffic analysis? We have a fairly wide -- wide range of uses that
are permitted, and I'm just trying to figure out how we came to that
conclusion.
MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. I'm going to punt to my traffic
consultant and let Dean Smith answer that question for you.
MR. SMITH: Good morning. Dean Smith for the record. The
traffic codes that were used to calculate the traffic generated from the
site for the new developed area was a shopping center code. And that
has been developed from the studies of integrated shopping center
sites of five or more uses, and it also includes outparcel-type uses,
such as a fast-food restaurant use that you were concerned about and
other higher generating uses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And are we proposed to have
fast food?
MR. SMITH: No. It was just made as an assumption to
estimate the maximum amount of traffic that we would expect to see
from this site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we don't know the true
impact of traffic?
MR. SMITH: No. But it would be -- this or something less is
what the intent was, worst-case scenario.
Page 98
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I think I'll hold the rest of my
questions until after the public input.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that it for the petitioner? How
many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have six speakers. The first one is Janet
Glancy followed by Donald Glancy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll ask for the second person to be
ready to take the podium. You're waiving sir? MR. GLANCY: I'm No. 2.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Number 1, and who would be the
next person, number 3 on the list?
MS. FILSON: Number 3 is Edward McCarthey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Start the timer when the petitioner is
ready -- excuse me -- when the speaker is ready.
We're going to take just a momentary break. Don't leave. Stay
right where you are.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
MS. GLANCY: My name is Janet Glancy. I reside at 1235
Milano Drive. I've resided there for 20 years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Pull the microphone a little closer,
please.
MS. GLANCY: How's that? Better? I've resided there for 20
years. I've been a voter in Collier County for 28, and I stand here to
represent a number of people in our neighborhood. I have a petition
right here signed by, I think, close to 150 members of-- residents of
Sorrento Gardens, Westlake, Northgate Village, I think there are
some from Country Club of Naples, all concerned about the impact of
this PUD on this entire area. We e-mailed a copy of the points of the
petition to each of you, and so I thank you for giving us time, county
commissioners and members of the public.
Page 99
February 12, 2002
As far as our concern about this PUD, actually we're concerned
about the impact of all that's going on around that entire area. It is
our understanding that -- if you look at the monitor up there -- that
this is going to be a commercial development of three stories on what
is now a church property but which has been sold.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's an assumption,
ma'am. They haven't come before the county commission.
MS. GLANCY: All right. Well, it's probably a safe one. This
is -- this is also zoned to be commercial, and this area right in here
may -- may go that way as well. If you look at the monitor, you can
see that the people in this area back in this area, the people in
Moorings Park here and the people in all of this area in here are
hemmed in in terms of traffic right now. And we have a -- a real
problem right now with traffic going through this area already on
Pompei, hooking up to Castello, going out to Route 41, where there
are no lights. And although the -- they held a meeting -- members of
the neighborhood held a meeting with the -- I believe the traffic
department, they were promised roundabouts and speed bumps on
some of these roads over a year ago. None of that has happened.
But let's get back to this particular PUD. I was moved earlier in
this meeting by Mr. Carr and his addressing you, talking about trust
in elected officials and representatives of the public and that the
responsibility of elected officials is to serve the good of all of the
citizens. We have great respect for the property rights of the people
who wish to sell their property for this PUD. But there are also
many, many property owners in that area south of that. And I think
that you should consider not just the property rights of the -- those
who would like to sell to the planned PUD, but the property rights of
those to the south.
We all purchased our property when that was predominantly
residential zoning. We have enjoyed quiet, relatively speaking.
Page 100
February 12, 2002
There are many, many children. I think there are 35 on our little
street alone. Leaving the area this morning, we passed at least 15
children on foot and on bicycles going to Pine Ridge Middle School.
And, therefore, our primary concern with this PUD is the amount of
traffic that it will generate.
In our petition we requested that you reject PUD-2000-22 until
the developers submit a clear plan that indicates exactly what will go
into the entire PUD because we have been stung already. To the left
of that PUD is a hotel and a bar and restaurant on land that should
have been a medical center. That didn't happen, and that change has
impacted our neighborhood tremendously. Unless you consider all of
the things in the three stages of the plan, we will have no idea of how
that development will impact all of us. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
objection to the uses -- I'm right here.
are proposed in this PUD?
Before you go, ma'am, what
What objection of the uses that
MS. GLANCY: I think that if you look along Castello Drive,
there are a number of developed professional offices that have low
impact-- relatively low impact on the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're objecting to that use?
MS. GLANCY: No, we're not. We're objecting to the
possibility of structures that might be 62 feet high. We're objecting
to the possibility of fast-food restaurants, bars and grills, high traffic
generating uses. We would not, probably, object to professional
offices or things that will generate low traffic, things that might be
arranged around a reconfigured lake, because although they like to
call it a borrow pit, part of that lake is spring fed. It has obviously
been borrowed from, but it is a natural wildlife habitat that has been
there for a very long time. And we're worried about drainage from
our entire area. We don't want things backing up, as things are
increasingly paved, into our area. And --
Page 101
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So to answer my question,
you're against fast food, bars, and the height of it?
MS. GLANCY: Yes. And certainly gas stations or any high
generating commercial purpose, as -- in terms of traffic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask, Rich, is there anything
in this PUD that limits the height?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Donald Glancy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
limits the height?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
Is there anything in this PUD that
Each of the -- each specific section
or parcel has a height limitation, and it is on page -- bear with me one
second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read that, but I just wanted it on
the record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, okay. Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't have to tell me which
page. I mean, because they said it was going to be something like --
she didn't want anything 62 feet. I don't remember reading that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not 62 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So would you -- would you
state for the record what the height limitations are?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the exact agenda package
page, but it's page 12 of the PUD. Area A, which is where the indoor
self-storage suites would go, is 50 feet, not to exceed three stories.
Areas B and C are 45 feet, not to exceed three stories. However, with
the architectural embellishments to hide the air-conditioning
equipment on the roof, that could go to 60 feet. The architectural
embellishments could bring the total height of the building to --
Page 102
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's where they heard the 60
feet then.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe they heard the 62 feet when
Mr. Bellows earlier said that could be 12 feet, and that would be on
Parcel A. If it were 50 feet plus 12, we'd get the number of 62 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I needed to hear.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Following Mr. Glancy will be Edward
McCarthey.
MR. GLANCY: Thank you. My name is Don Glancy. I live
with Mrs. Glancy at 1235 Milano Drive, and she let me speak second.
We are -- we are opposed to this PUD for a number of reasons, some
of which she brought up with you already. You know that it will
require filling in a lake which destroys a wildlife habitat, significant,
lots of old native trees on some of that property.
The filling of the lake, we fear, will endanger drainage, natural
drainage surrounding there. I don't know if you folks are aware or
not, but those properties are all on septic. And the more we fill and
the more we pave, it seems to me the more we're going to saturate
that land. I wonder as I look at the lake when I step out there, where
is that water going to go, or where is the source of that water going to
go when that lake is filled? Perhaps the engineers can help me with
that.
We get a pretty picture when Mr. Arnold shows you the wall,
proposed wall, and he shows you the proposed vegetation, and they
show you one building, the only building that has been proposed to
build. They don't show you, when they show you the wall, the 50-
foot building that will be behind that wall, which is what I will get a
chance to look at. If I just came out there and looked at a nice
landscaped area and a wall, I could probably handle that, but I'm
going to be looking at at least a 50-foot building, most likely.
Page 103
February l2,2002
My wife pointed out that more commercial establishments here
will add to a terrible traffic situation. We know about that.
Everybody knows about that who tries to travel in that area.
One of the other concerns we have is that this PUD, this planned
unit development, is only partially planned, one building, one
business, one structure which, by the way, will stick out to about one-
third of my back yard. They finish that one, then one-third of my
back yard will have wall and building until somebody decides to put
something else there, and we have no idea what that will be either.
It is a pretty picture when they say we plan consistency in the
architecture. We plan for these buildings to blend with each other.
The people who proposed the Naples Medical Plaza painted a pretty
picture as well, but it became a hotel and a bar. We know how those
things have happened in the past, and I'm sure that-- or I hope there'll
be the kind of oversight that will prevent that kind of thing from
happening in the future.
My wife mentioned that we respect the right of the property
owners on the other side of the lake, those people who wish to sell to
profit from what they're doing, but we must all remember, they
bought residential property. We bought residential property. I
bought residential property that looks at residential property. When
they have sold theirs and they are gone with the money they're taking
with them, my property value is going to go down, and I'm going to
have a wall and some buildings to look at.
Now, I don't know how the county addresses a problem like that.
I'm talking to Commissioner Coyle about how these -- the form that
these objections take, and he said something about, well, you know,
you can always get lawsuits. Well, you can. Who do I sue?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I stop you there? I've never
said that.
MR. GLANCY: No, no. You said at our meeting -- a question
Page 104
February 12, 2002
was asked about objections to these kinds of things and about your
turning down a PUD, and you said, "Well, when those things happen,
there can be lawsuits. The county can be sued"; is that not correct.'?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's different.
MR. GLANCY: Yes. And that is what I was talking about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. GLANCY: So the county can be sued by the PUD. I
suppose the county can be sued by me. I mean, can I ask for some
kind of redress of my financial grievance if by getting rid of the lake
and putting a wall and a building makes my property worth half what
it was before? Is that a possibility? Is it a concern on the part of the
commission, the members of the commission, are you concerned-- as
you consider these various PUDs, are you concerned about what that
does not just to the people who sell, but to the people who remain? Is
there any kind of process, any kind of procedure that addresses that?
Probably not.
Anyway, we wanted to register our objection to this. We hope if
it is approved, that there will be some concern given for the quality of
our life, the quality of our neighborhood, the safety of the children
who live there. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. Edward McCarthey, and
he will be followed by Dan Reader.
MR. McCARTHEY: Mr. Chairman, Fellow Chairmans (sic),
my name is Edward McCarthey. I've lived in Collier County since
1969. I'm aware of what Pine Ridge was in 1961. It was a beautiful
little two-lane highway on which I traveled to come into Collier
County. It is no longer the beautiful area between Goodlette Road
and 41. I think we can all agree to that. It needs help. Believe me
when I tell you that it was a hard task to get all the property owners
together to come before you and to come before the Planning
Commission to bring this to fruition today, and we ask that you make
Page 105
February 12, 2002
the consideration today for the benefit of the community. Whatever
you do in approving this plan today will enhance that community. I
do sympathize with the property owners that live in there, but Naples
is growing, and it's growing at a rapid pace. We do need to beautify
that area because not only do we travel that road, we have visitors
that come to the community, millions of them, that travel down Pine
Ridge Road, and we need to do our part to make it as calming and as
beautiful as we possibly can for the community.
I raised two children here in Collier County and helped raise two
others. I have one as a teacher here in Collier County. We live here
in Collier County, and I sympathize with the property owners in
Collier County. I think that our planners have come to you with a -- a
purposeful plan, the one that we worked with the property owners
behind our property to make it viable. We went over and beyond the
plans that is being demanded by the county.
I am not here to tell you how you can vote for this action. What
I am telling you today is that I give you some scenario as to why you
should vote for our plan. Number one, it's an eyesore in that area,
number one. Number two, the land uses of that area today is not
compatible with the area. Number three, it hasn't (sic) been approved
by your staff and your advisory board for Collier County. The staff
has done a good job of tweaking our planner's proposal to the county.
It will be less cuts on Pine Ridge Road, and I think that the traffic
will flow a lot better when this plan is put together and this is a --
totally built out.
So I leave you with today, are we going to beautify the area?
Because I tell you now, it was a hard job getting all the property
owners together. Are you going to not approve the plan and leave it
as is to look to the future for all the visitors that come through that
area? If you choose to accept it, I feel that you will be doing Collier
Countians a great favor. You'll be beautifying the area, and I feel that
Page 106
February 12, 2002
you will have be -- done the right thing for the community and for
our visitors. I thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dan Reader, and he will be
followed by Lori Stresen-Reuter.
MR. READER: My name's Dan Reader. I've been a resident of
the Westlake area since 1978. I'm not going to repeat everything
twice, as a courtesy to you-all, but I want you to know that I fully
agree with what's been said against this project.
But I do want to make some additional comments about some of
the traffic situations because the traffic in our area right now is bad.
Another 5,000 cars a day is going to make it worse. When
Tanglewood Plaza went in and the medical centers around Castello
Drive, I thought it was a good idea. But I ask two questions, and I
ask these questions with the intent to stimulate some creative
thinking, not to be accusative. When Tanglewood Plaza was planned
and put in and approved, why weren't there impact fees required to
widen Castello Drive to handle the semi trucks that now come in to
make deliveries that can't maneuver the tums and have to drive on the
grass? And if you're in a car and you meet one of these trucks, you
have to stop because there's not room for both of you.
And what's going to happen when this project goes in? These
cars are going to come down Goodlette, turn right on Pompei, and be
dumped out on Castello Drive, which will not be able to handle it
because they have a problem right now. In addition to that, when
they do cut through there, they don't abide by the speed limits,
because I see cops sitting there all the time because the neighbors
have complained about speeders and with children on the streets.
And myself was traveling that road east. I came in off of-- going
west on Pompei, and somebody that was in a hurry passed me in a
residential area, and they must have been going 50 or 60 miles an
hour.
Page 107
February 12, 2002
Another thing, on filling the lake, I think it's a bad idea because
that lake right now is a water retention for that area. And with the
development, the roofs, the roads, the additional parking space, all
this water is going to flow south through the Westlake area and end
up in Westlake Lake. I've lived there 24 years, and the Westlake
Lake has never overflowed. I've seen it clear to the top and ready to
overflow in some of the hurricanes and storms, but it didn't overflow.
Without this lake and with all their water coming our way, it
probably will. And if that happens, someone is going to be faced
with some liability problems.
My next question, to stimulate some creative thinking, is why
isn't the county reserving some major property around major
intersections such as Pine Ridge and Goodlette for future overpasses?
It's going to be needed to handle the future traffic the way we are
growing. And if I had a store, I would not want it under an
underpass.
So I think it is not best to approve this plan. I think we need
to step back and think futuristically on how we can best use it for
everybody's sake. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The next speaker is Lori Stresen-Reuter
followed by, it looks like, Connie Pinckney. Pardon me on your
name.
MS. STRESEN-REUTER: No, you did good. Hello. My name
is Lori Stresen-Reuter, and my husband, Steve, and I own the
property at 160 Pine Ridge Road. Our parcel is the west piece which
abuts the Ramada Inn. In 1993 Steve and I purchased the duplex as
is, as part of a plan for our future retirement. As a self-employed
contractor, Steve knew we had to plan for the future ourselves with
no matching retirement fund from a corporation.
We were attracted to the piece because of its vicinity to the
commercial property. By purchasing one of the eight rundown
Page 108
February 12, 2002
houses on Pine Ridge Road between two commercially zoned areas,
we hoped the county eventually would want to improve the area by
rezoning. In the meantime, Steve, as a contractor, felt that
improvements to the duplex, even at our cost, would not warrant
themselves in additional rent. And this is because of the condition of
the surrounding houses and the location of the duplex a few feet off
of one of Collier County's main arterial roads.
In August of 2000, one of the property owners contacted
everyone in this area about rezoning and selling as a group. It has
truly been amazing that this group, with all its diverse personalities,
could come this far in the last two years. Several other attempts over
the past years have been initiated and have failed. If this area is not
rezoned now, I truly feel that future attempts as a group would fall
apart, and the area will deteriorate further.
In closing, I would like to share a short story. Three years ago
my husband and I built our dream home. The windows of our L-
shaped home overlook the pool area with a beautiful view of the
woods behind. For three years I've enjoyed the beauty of the bamboo
trees, the majestic pines, various palms, and numerous wildlife.
However, survey stakes recently marked off this lot beside us.
Although we reap the benefits of this gorgeous view, it is not mine to
decide its fate. We knew this when we purchased the property, and
we know this now. Thank you for your consideration.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Connie Pinckney.
MS. PINCKNEY: Hi. I'm Connie Pinckney, and I live at 1120
Lake Shore Place in Westlake. When my husband and I moved to
Naples 15 years ago, we looked for a -- a contained residential
community where there were lots of families and children, and we
looked for the top schools. And we've reaped the benefits of that for
these 15 years, Seagate, Pine Ridge, Naples High. And we've raised
our family for 15 years in the same home, having a lot of the same
Page 109
February 12, 2002
friends in this community where our kids ride their bikes, they go
visit their friends, they play ball.
Well, I know things change, and I know growth is essential and
part of Naples. When we moved here, it was No. 1. It may be No. 2
fastest growing community. That's part of it. There's some change,
though, that you want to stop. When it was proposed that a bar be
built in -- when the development near our neighborhood started, we
fought that, and we thought we won. But you know what? We now
have two bars.
And you talk about traffic, traffic does cut through. We do have
speed bumps on my street. There are beer cans and bottles that have
been thrown in that areca hedge that I've built, which I've leveled and
now set it back a little bit and have just grass to solve my problem.
And my neighbor did have someone who was intoxicated cut through
and run into the front of their house. You know, those are real things.
I'm not really a pro about what the planning codes say, but I do have
a child who still goes to Pine Ridge Middle School and kids who still
play ball and still ride their bikes in this neighborhood. And we
would like to live in Naples in the same house until our grandchildren
come and our children are raised.
That was supposed to be a medical center. You know what? It's
a five-story hotel. And I happen to know, through my own business
as a psychotherapist and knowing, that -- reading the newspaper, that
not only are they selling alcohol at those bars, but they're also selling
drugs, and there have been police activity over in that area. Well,
thank you very much. I want to live in a residential community and
raise my children where they don't have to be afraid of being run over
through cross-through traffic, and that has begun.
You know what? This -- pictures look great, and I do applaud
the efforts they do to -- they've gone to make a buffer and to. go above
and beyond. But in buying the whole PUD, it's like a pig in a poke. I
Page 110
February 12, 2002
don't know what's going to come in those other parcels. I don't know
where the exits are going to come, and I don't know about the
increased traffic. I really would like to know the whole scenario, and
I'd like it to be lower buildings. I'd like it to be lower density traffic,
and I sure would thank you if you didn't put another bar in my
neighborhood. Thanks.
MS. FILSON: That's your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it. Okay. Well, we'll close
the public hearing. Commissioners, questions for Mr. Bellows?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have any questions.
Comment. I agree with the lady that came up and spoke --
(A discussion was held off the record.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that came up and spoke
representing the neighborhood in the -- the last public speaker. You
know, this is not a fitting area for a bar or fast food or a gas station.
And the -- the height situations is -- is something that we need to
address too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why -- why don't we start off with a
motion and then add to it, what you got now, and then keep the
discussion going?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Coletta, if I may, I could
probably help on some of this, since I didn't get a chance to speak
after the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you wouldn't mind. Thank you.
What you just suggested, Commissioner Henning, regarding no fast
food, no bar, and no gas station is fine. We can -- we can eliminate
those uses. We never intended to have a bar there in the first place.
I do want to enter into the record, because there was discussion
about this being environmentally sensitive -- we have had it analyzed
by Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc., and this is their report,
Page 111
February 12, 2002
which I'd like to enter into the record, that this lake is not an
environmentally sensitive lake. It's a borrow pit. The wall and "what
you're going to look at" issue is you're going to have a -- you're going
to have a wall, and you're going to look at a building, whether it's
developed commercial or is redeveloped as apartments. Under any
scenario that lake will need to be filled to make the property viable,
and Wayne Arnold can get up there and tell you that.
That building, as I explained, is the very building that will be
constructed, and I'm pointing to the landscape buffer. That is what
the adjoining property owner will see when that building is built.
It's 38 feet to the parapet, 43 feet to the mansard roof. When
Mr. Glancy's property is developed (sic) and the lake is filled in, that
is what he will see. Okay. The buffer will be there. If the building is
38 feet, 43 feet at the mansard, that's what he will see, and that will
be uniform throughout the PUD. There are many, many examples in
the City of Naples and in Collier County where commercial abuts
property -- commercial abuts residential, and it works fine. We have
-- I think we have been more than sensitive.
This is a quasi-judicial hearing, as you all know. You've had
expert testimony on the planning issues from your staff as well as our
consultant, and they said it's compatible. You've had expert
testimony from your staff and our traffic engineer that traffic-wise we
meet the code. You've -- you've had no expert testimony to the
contrary. What we're asking you to do is we have -- we have done
everything that is legally required of us. We've met all the
requirements under your code. We've exceeded the requirements
under your code. And with the -- the deletion of the items that
Commissioner Henning has mentioned, I think we've addressed the
concerns of what we've heard as to the specific uses from the
neighbors that is in the laundry list of uses.
And we would, again, unless you have any further questions of
Page 112
February 12, 2002
me or any of the other consultants, request that you entertain a
motion to approve the PUD as modified by the uses that
Commissioner Henning has asked us to delete.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- I know that you guys are really
working with us, and -- and I've paid attention to everything I've
heard today as well as read. And I'm glad to hear there's no bars, so
that was one of the things I had on my list. Height limitation, maybe
there's something that can be done with that. And I see Bob shaking
his head yes, because if that's -- that's a problem. To me, I think
sometimes that height somehow will give the building a nicer look.
But if it's -- if it's something that the neighborhood feels that they
can't live with, I'm sure that you'll work with them.
The irrigation gives me a little bit of a problem on the other
side of the fence, because you've got that 5 feet there. And you say
the neighbors can water if they'd like, but what if there's rental
people, and they don't want to water it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll -- Commissioner Fiala, we'll --
we'll install the necessary --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Irrigation and care for that side of
the fence, too, because--
MR. YOVANOVICH: As long-- you know, again, they're
going to have to give us access to their property if there's any
maintenance issues regarding--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then -- then we're narrowed
down to low intensity use, because I think low intensity use will also
protect the neighborhoods from a great deal of traffic. And I know
what it feels like because I live on Lakewood Boulevard, and I -- I
would appreciate if a low intensity use was offered. As you say, no
fast-food restaurants, no bars, and no gas stations, that in itself is a --
is a great accommodation, I think.
Page 113
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is in Areas A, B, and C?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The uses would be not permitted in any
portion of-- those uses would be prohibited in any of--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. I just wanted to go through
this to make sure that we were on the same page. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich, one more thing.
Would you be able to honor that -- including that in the PUD, that the
lake will not be filled until that point in time that you're ready to start
construction?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, we're happy to do that,
but I -- I can't tell if Mr. Glancy wanted us to -- to leave the lake or
not. But we're happy to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just to leave it to that point in time,
because there may be a span of time of six months, or there might be
a span of time of ten years.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. We'll--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't know. But meanwhile,
why should the neighbors have to look out their back door and see a
filled lot with no vegetation growing on it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're happy to -- we'll put a provision
in there that says the lake will be filled as each parcel is developed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also, too, with the type of
building, of course, you will be responsible for any codes that are in
force at that time of building. It's not something where we're
grandfathering you in at this point in time.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's understood?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And are you willing to put up
Page 114
February 12, 2002
the -- the wall before the construction starts on the site and install the
landscape buffering?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I mean, we can do it on our
portion, our portion being Area A. We'll fill the lake, and then we'll
put the wall up and then start construction. Is that what you're
asking?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We can do that on our portion. I'll have
to ask -- I've got to check with Mr. Anderson. He's the only person
that --
MR. OLLIFF: And, Mr. Chairman, you may also want to
consider, I'm not sure you're going to be able to build the wall and
keep the lake--
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not going to.
MR. OLLIFF: -- at the same time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. This would just be on the first
portion. I mean, to keep the lake in place and build a wall --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But as each -- as each portion -- I
think as each parcel comes in, the lake will get filled. And Mr.
Anderson is checking if he can -- if he'll agree that when that parcel
is developed, that the -- that the wall will be put up prior to
commencing the vertical construction.
Commissioner Henning, I'm -- I'm assuming you meant when
each site is redeveloped, like when the Shepards come in to redevelop
their property, they would then -- they'd have to put the wall up
before they remove what's there and then go vertical? Then the
answer's yes. We'll put the wall in before vertical construction occurs
on each parcel.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. This -- this area is
really an eyesore. It's an embarrassment to the entire community, in
Page 115
February 12, 2002
my opinion, and it really needs to be improved. And in the process of
trying to improve it, it would seem to me that the petitioner would
want to have as attractive a parcel as possible here. And I can't think
of any way to make it more attractive than to retain that lake. I know
you have the right to fill it. I would appeal to you, however, to try to
find some way to incorporate at least a portion of that lake into your
open space plan on this project. I think it would actually increase the
value of your property and make it far more attractive from the
standpoint of-- of people who travel up and down that road.
The -- the issue of uncertainty, I think, is the one that disturbs
a lot of people. We have a PUD which allows buildings up to 62
feet, but really you're not planning to build one that high right now.
And what I would urge you to do is to see if you can't be more
specific about the heights of the buildings you want to build there
because the people are concerned about that. And I think one of our
obligations is to ensure that what we approve here is at least in some
way compatible with the surrounding residential area.
Yes, you have rights. You can do certain things with property
you buy or you own. But I -- I'm appealing to you to be more willing
to compromise with the residents, to find something -- some way to
address their concerns on building heights and something with that
lake, because I -- I am absolutely convinced with some imaginative
planning, you can have a beautiful facility there by retaining some of
that property in -- and that lake.
The -- the permitted uses at the present time, so the visitors --
or the residents understand, do not permit service stations, don't
permit food, and do not permit bars -- restaurant bars. That's what
I'm getting to. Now, there are a number of uses in the approved uses
here which I don't think are suitable for this property. Some of them
are suitable for C-4 or C-5 perhaps.
And I would ask that we take a closer look at those permitted
Page 116
February 12, 2002
uses and have you, as -- as the petitioner, give us a little better idea of
what you'd really like to do with the property, because it's a wide
range of uses here. I'm not sure it -- it really provides you with a
greater ability to realize a -- a return on the property. I -- I think you
could select a half a dozen or more uses here that are generally office
related that would be very acceptable to you and -- and remove much
of the uncertainty with respect to the residents.
And, of course, the traffic circulation problem is -- is -- as I
see it, is our problem. It's not necessarily your problem, because
based upon the approved uses, then -- then we have to accept
responsibility for dealing with the transportation problems.
So -- and that brings me to something that all of you have heard
before. Uncertainty is what causes the residents to get upset with
development, and it's what gets us into trouble when we're trying to
plan for traffic and we're trying to plan for roads. It is difficult to
make an informed decision when you don't know how much traffic's
going to be generated, you don't know how many access points are
going to be there, you don't know how many lanes of traffic you've
got, you don't know how many left-turn lanes you're going to have to
build, you don't know what kind of traffic control devices you have to
establish there.
What -- what we're being asked to do in -- in a situation such as
a PUD -- and I'm not directing this at this particular situation, but in
general -- is to make a -- a decision to permit somebody to do
something and give them certain rights, and we have no idea what we
have to do to prepare for it. And that, to me, is a flawed process. And
I know that almost everybody I've talked with has told me that's
wrong, that it has to be that way, that the PUDs have to be very, very
flexible, that they must not be specific. And I'm saying to you that if
you want to solve the problems we're faced with, we'll find a better
way of doing this.
Page 117
February 12, 2002
And this doesn't affect your PUD, because I know you followed
the procedures that are in our -- our documentation and under our
rules. But this is an extremely dangerous process, and I am convinced
it's one of the reasons we're having the problems we have right now,
and I -- I wish that we would take this into consideration as we move
forward from here. But if-- if this -- this petition could get more
specific about uses, we could then get more specific about traffic
possibilities and how we would handle it and access points, and I
would feel more comfortable recommending to staff that they
consider certain traffic control devices that would make it easier for
you and easier for the residents too. But, quite frankly, unless we can
resolve some of those issues, I'm not in a position to make an
informed decision on this PUD.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Coyle, if I -- if I may, I --
I have not heard, other than the three uses we just talked about that's
in the list, of any -- any of the listed uses that do not fit within what
you just said, low intensity and office-type uses once we've
eliminated those uses. So I think we have provided the list of-- of
the types of uses that address the neighbors. They know what is the
potential universe of what can be there.
I cannot tell you today that, you know, in this leased space
you're going to have an accountant, and in another leased space
you're going to have, you know, a veterinarian, or in this leased space
you're going to have a -- you know, a bagel shop. I don't know that
today. And I won't know that definitely forever. I mean, there's
always -- the tenants come and tenants go in these retail spaces. I can
give you a list. We've provided this list to the -- to the -- the
neighbors know this list. They've expressed to you the types of uses
that they didn't like, and we've said, "Okay. They're gone. We'll
eliminate those uses."
Transportation prefers to make decisions based upon access
Page 118
February 12, 2002
points at the site planning stage. They don't want -- they don't want
to commit today to where our cuts will be on Pine Ridge Road during
the zoning. I can't get to where you would like to be under the
current process. I can tell you that we are bound by the traffic
decisions that your staff makes, and your staff-- and I've said this at
the Planning Commission as a compliment, not as a -- in a negative
fashion-- is conservative. They-- they are looking out for the
minimum number of cuts on Pine Ridge Road. We have to -- we
have to meet their threshold at the time of site development plan.
You -- you're asking for a lot of things that are -- may after,
you know, debate -- and I'm not prepared to debate you today as to
what's the proper procedure -- but require changes in the process.
And I would -- I don't think it's fair to our clients to change the
process in the middle of our application.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nor am I recommending that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I know that. And what I'm trying
to say is I hope I've given you enough information. If we thought we
could keep that lake, we would have kept that lake. I -- I'm a big fan
of path of least resistance. It -- I'm not looking to pick fights with
any neighborhoods. Neither is Wayne, and neither is my client. I
mean, if we thought we could reconfigure it in a way that we -- we
could make it work, we would have done that.
I can commit to you that we'll still keep looking, but I can't say
to you that under any -- under no circumstances will we fill in that
lake. I can -- I can commit to you to evaluate it and look at it, but it
does not serve a water management function. It would have to be
significantly changed to serve a valid water management function.
And you'd have a canal; you wouldn't have a lake. And I can't -- I
can't resculpt it to a way that it really works. If I could, I would have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But let's go to the permitted uses.
Just as an example -- and there are many examples in this process.
Page 119
February 12, 2002
One of the examples is postal -- postal service contract stations.
Now, every post office I know in the entire area is -- is packed with
traffic coming in and out, that they have access problems. Is that
something you really want to propose there? How about oil change
stations? You know, there -- there are uses here that I seriously doubt
that -- that anyone who wants to build a quality development at this
location would want to use. And I -- I am merely asking you --
recognizing your rights under -- under our procedures, I'm asking you
to -- to take some time to try to address the concerns of the
community a little more and -- and hopefully reach a better
conclusion. And that's -- that's all I'm asking you to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, it's a
possibility that we can go through all these uses and discuss them and
find out which one is offensible (sic). You know, we don't want to
create traffic problems, and we don't want to create neighborhood
problems. And talking about postal contract station, that's like a
Kinko's; correct? That's not a --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's like-- you know, those ship and
packs is -- is what we're talking about. We're not talking about the
United States Postal Service type of place. We're talking about --
we're not talking a full-service post office. We're talking about where
I go last minute to mail my Christmas presents. Oil change, fine. I
mean, those are the types of things that we -- Mr. Coyle -- and I say
this all -- we have met with the neighbors. We have asked which
uses. It's -- we've not had-- that dialogue has not come to us. They
handed you a petition today. I've not seen it. Why? I don't know.
But oil change, that can come out.
We -- we have extended every opportunity to work with the
neighbors. If there are other uses that -- that they've said to you that
you want out, please share them with me, because we'd really like to
say yes, we'll keep them, or no, they won't. We'll go out and keep the
Page 120
February 12, 2002
process moving today. Are there any other uses besides oil change?
I hope I've explained the postal service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, you have.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that drinking places, that
even though they are in conjunction with a restaurant, might be
contrary to the wishes of the neighborhood.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, do you -- are you -- do you want a
restaurant that offers liquor but can't have a stand-alone bar?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Perhaps.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that -- is that what the neighbors
want?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We don't want a restaurant. I don't
want to smell the restaurant.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to -- please don't
address --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- questions to the audience.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I know better. I'm sorry,
Mr. Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about food stores?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is permitted. Food stores are
permitted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, I mean, how do you feel about
that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They sell liquor. Do you mind?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm more concerned with the
noise that -- that results at two o'clock in the morning.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So you would like restaurants --
it would be a restaurant that can provide alcohol but not a stand-alone
bar for--
Page 121
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But as Commissioner Henning
points out, we can go through each one of these, and we can debate
them, and I don't intend to do that today. All right? That's -- that's
not what I'm here for. But I -- I see some -- some concerns that are
neighborhood concerns and are concerns of county government. And
they are the pond; the heights of buildings; the setbacks in the rear,
that is from the private -- the private residence property lines; and the
traffic pattern; and certain of the uses. And those are the -- those are
the concerns I have, and they're -- and they're concerns that I have
because there is so much uncertainty.
And -- and I'm going to be making a decision to do something,
and I don't know what it is. And I would say to you that I have had
experience with PUDs that are very, very specific. And they have
been extremely successful, and they have been well received by the
neighborhood in almost all cases. And they -- they result in a lot of
give and take with the surrounding community as -- as well as the
municipal government, and there are certain conditions where that is
not possible. When we're talking about a very, very large PUD that
might take many, many years -- 10, 15, or even 20 years -- to build
out, I understand why you can't have that specificity. What I don't
understand is why you can't have it with a small PUD of about 8.26
acres or whatever it is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Commissioner Coyle, if it helps
you, I can show you what we believe is a realistic site plan of how
this will develop. I can't tell you the -- I could tell you how we hope
it will develop, but I can't tell you I've sold every tract, and now I'm
ready to come to you. I mean, that's -- that's not, you know,
reasonable at this stage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Possibly I might be able to help here
just a little bit. I think you're finding fault with the system rather than
with the petitioner, basically. I mean, you'd like to see something
Page 122
February 12, 2002
more complete. Let's -- let's go back to staff and see what they may
be able to suggest, because we seem to be at a standoff right at the
moment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or you could take the vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no. We could do that also, but
let's see if there's some middle ground on this. There's something
we're missing on this, Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Staff has done exactly what you're
discussing today with the petitioner. We've discussed the issue of
height. The Land Development Code for PUDs does not restrict or
have a maximum height limit per se, but compatibility with adjacent
land uses is of paramount concern of our review. The PUD to the
west has a maximum height of 45 feet. The petitioner has agreed
today to limit the height of Tract A to 45 feet. Staff is feeling that is
completely consistent with the development trends along Pine Ridge
Road, which is one of the major arterial roads.
Two, the applicant is agreeing to provide an architectural
rendering that will be consistent with the county's Land Development
Code for architecture requirements. This will be an improvement to
the area aesthetically, along with improved landscaping along
Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road. That's meeting the
needs of the community and keeping intact the county's long history
of providing landscaping. I think that's one of the crowning
achievements of Collier County is the landscaping along arterial
roads. This will improve that quadrant of the intersection of
Goodlette and Pine Ridge immensely. And we will get a --
conditions in the PUD for landscaping the wall along the southern
property line that will be a benefit to the residents.
I've had some discussions with many of the residents during this
review process. Definitely the lake would be a very nice amenity if it
could be done. Unfortunately, due to the narrowness of this -- of the
Page 123
February 12, 2002
depth of the lot, it's almost impossible to really develop anything and
keep that lake. Two, they have security concerns with commercial
zoning, so many of them expressed that the wall should be completed
at once. Once the wall goes in, have it go down all the way, the
entire length. That way we have a unified architectural wall design.
The landscaping should be maintained on both sides of the wall by
the petitioner, and I think they've agreed to do that.
The other issues with the uses, during the Planning Commission,
we have eliminated a lot of uses during that public hearing. Staff--
in dealing with the applicant, we've eliminated a lot of uses during
the review process. We felt we've come -- come down to a list that is
fairly consistent with the C-3 uses. There are some uses that are
found in the C-4 and C-5, but they are low intensity of traffic
generation, such as a travel agent. Travel agent happens to be found
in the C-5 district, but it's deemed to be consistent with the general
office uses of C-3.
The issue of eating places and restaurants, I -- that's always a
tough call for staff. It's generally found in the C-3 district. So we did
not recommend that that use come out, but that seems to be a trend
lately with the last few petitions I had, where restaurants were kicked
out. So I think that's a call with the rest of-- the petitioners and the
county commission, if that can be agreed upon.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to use one more
example, and then I'm going to leave this thing where it is. You
know where I am with it. Okay? Do you plan to put in an ice-
skating rink here?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why is it in the approved use?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's -- that's the SIC code that's
applicable. That includes many things.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that. You're not
Page 124
February 12, 2002
planning on putting a miniature golf course in here, are you? That's
one of the permitted uses.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the point I'm getting
at is you can tell me all you want to tell me about consistency of
planning. But if you've got a -- an indoor storage facility in one
place, you've got a bank in another place, and a miniature golf course
beside that, don't tell me that the PUD helps you do a wonderful job,
okay, because that's not -- and that is possible right now if you
approve the PUD. You can get that right now. And although we get
an architectural rendering of-- of one building, what is the
architectural rendering of the oil change shop or the glass repair
shop? What is it? That's right. There's no requirement for that.
You're absolutely right.
And -- and so I will cut -- I will cut this short because you're
right. You followed our current rules. I have an argument with our
current rules, and I will continue to bring this up until we get the
current rules changed. But I understand your legal right to proceed
the way you're proceeding. I just wish that you could find some way
to accommodate some of the needs of this neighborhood.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can-- here's what I can do. You
mentioned height. I could say on the record and change the PUD that
the maximum height, including architectural embellishments,
throughout the PUD will be 45 feet. You've got no shot at 62-foot
buildings. I can do that. I think that's going a long way. We're
asking for some flexibility as to the potential uses, but you and I both
know that if things develop as you're suggesting, that miniature golf
course isn't going to show up. So, I mean, it will take -- the market
will take care of those types of issues.
We have really gone above and met more than halfway all the
residents when they've talked to us. And I hope that everything we've
Page 125
February 12, 2002
offered up today and deleting the uses, the oil change uses and all the
other stuff, along with bringing the height down, we have -- we have
at least made you comfortable that we have gone above and beyond
and taken into consideration the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rich --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I have to come in on the
defense of Commissioner Coyle. This language didn't get in there by
mistake.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What language?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of the uses. These are the uses
that you're asking for. And indoor slot car track or miniature golf
courses, like Commissioner Coyle said, you and your client put those
in there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely, and it's a possibility. Will it
happen? I don't know. Commissioners, you know, again, this is --
this is an educational process for both sides of the table. Things are
changing. The process which we go through, the PUDs and the types
of uses, is changing. We are change -- we are trying to address those
changes in responsive and responsible ways. I'm sure we've done
that. We -- we do neighborhood meetings long before you required
them. We asked for input. We don't receive the input until we get in
front of you. We're powerless to make some of these issues go away.
We've done the best we can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to see a motion forthcoming
pretty soon, and then we can continue the discussion. Once again, I
believe we're dealing with a supermajority here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: I just have a quick --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry, Jim. Mr. Carter?
Page 126
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've been listening to all the
debate, and I don't know if this is a way out, but I am feeling that
perhaps the first issue, the first land use issue, isn't a major problem.
I think everyone is relatively satisfied with that. It's the two
remaining sections of the PUD that causes so much concern. Perhaps
we could approve this conditionally where only the first part is
approved, and the other two have to come back to us in the future
when they are ready to develop this. And then we can make those
decisions accordingly because we will have better traffic data and all
the other items that go into the -- the points that Commissioner Coyle
was bringing up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a motion you're making or a
suggestion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'll go to the petitioner to
see if they would accept it. I don't have any problem making a
motion to that effect.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm a little confused as to what I'm --
what we would be coming back for approval. Would it be the uses or
just the site plan that we'd have to bring back to the commission?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You'd have to bring back the site
plan and the uses. I don't think you can separate the two. You've got
architectural standards here. You've got uses. You've got traffic
impacts. You've got all the landscaping efforts around here. I think
this may be a workable solution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Subject to the codes of that particular
time; right?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I -- okay. Commissioner Carter, we --
we can -- we can live with coming back to you-all for site plan
approval. We can eliminate the ice-skating rinks, indoor slot car
track, and miniature golf course. We can -- we've talked about oil
Page 127
February 12, 2002
change and lubricating -- you know, those things can come out.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, in all due respect, sir, I'm
not -- I'm not concerned about trying to craft all these things from the
dais today. I really think that it takes -- each time you come back, we
can review those and see what is applicable at that point.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we do this, Mr. Chairman, with
your indulgence?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I have a motion on the floor.
If I can get a second, then we're going to go with the discussion and
take a vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't hear the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Want to restate the motion, Mr.
Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The motion is that we would
approve the first PUD use, which is the storage -- storage. And then
the other two, that would come back. Each one -- each phase would
come back for review by the Board of County Commissioners, taking
into consideration all the uses, taking into consideration traffic
impacts, etc., because we need a uniform architectural theme
throughout this. And I'm like Commissioner Coyle. I'm not -- you
know, I keep hearing I can't guarantee that. Well, I'm not
comfortable with that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, if we could table this and
give us an opportunity to go through the SIC code and the list, I'll
come back with (sic) you with the uses we -- we suggest come out.
We'll come up with -- you know, if you want a -- I'm sensitive to
eliminating uses that may be extraneous, but we are committing to a
common architectural theme for the entire project, and we are
committing to the common landscape buffer.
I'm concerned that we're getting a PUD without a PUD on a
portion of the property. And if the third tract comes in, how do I
Page 128
February 12, 2002
assure interconnection? How do you assure common landscape?
How do you assure architecture? I think we can come back later on
in the meeting today with the elimination of uses. And if we can't,
we'll request a continuance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think -- would you be agreeable to
that, table it and give them a chance to work this out? I mean, we're
asking them to do what we told them we -- we wanted them to do,
and we're expecting them to do it in a few minutes. Would you be
agreeable to table this? We could have a brief break for lunch, come
back, take the next issue, then finish up with-- with you. That would
give you about an hour or so.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe you could figure out a way
to keep the lake in the meantime.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or at least a -- a decorative pond that
would add something to your development.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a suggestion.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Where do I put the fence?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Put the fence?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We might forgive you the fence, and
you can save the irrigation you have to put on the other side of it too.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we do this: I think
everybody's saying to me they'd prefer to wait two weeks and come
back and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion to continue and a
second. Mr. Bellows, did you have any last comments before we -- MR. BELLOWS: Motion to continue for two weeks is all I
need to know. I've got everything else written down.
Page 129
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: I have all your previous comments, so two
weeks will be fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we'll pick up where we left off as
far as what we already have and find out how they're going to make
this thing workable from that point. Okay. So we have a motion to
continue, a second. Any other discussion?
MR. OLLIFF: Just a minute.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. Somebody's --
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Just for clarification with Commissioner Carter,
Mr. Carter had indicated that he would make a motion. I believe you
recognized it as a motion. I do not believe there was a second. So
you will need to address that first motion, or Mr. Carter can, if he
wishes to, remove his motion so there's not a motion on the floor, that
will either die for lack of a second, and the new business that you
have before you now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Weigel, I'll withdraw my
motion.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for catching that, Mr.
Weigel.
All those in favor, indicate by -- one last comment? You had your
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. I was just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're getting ready to say
something.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
I'm getting ready to vote.
Page 130
February 12, 2002
aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0.
Unless there's some other commitments here, I'd like to limit our
lunchtime to a half an hour so we can get back and finish up the
business that we have at hand. (Lunch recess taken from 1:37 p.m. To
2:10 p.m.) (Commissioner Carter not present.)
Item #8C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE FLOW WAY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD) PURSUANT TO SECTION
190.005, FLORIDA STATUTES -CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY
26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats, please. Go ahead
and take your seats. We'll begin. We're going to make a slight
adjustment to the agenda. Mr. Carter won't be available for about an
hour and a half. He's -- he has -- he's going to the doctor's. He has a
doctor's appointment. He never expected to be this long when we --
he made the appointment. So we're going to accommodate him by
changing the schedule around. We're not dealing with the items that
require a super majority, which would be totally unfair to have only
four people here and they would have to vote unanimously for any
particular item to carry it.
So with that in mind, the next item on the agenda -- and I don't
have my glasses on. It's a mystery to me too.
Page 131
February 12, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: Item 8-C, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead.
MR. OLLIFF: The Flow Way Community Development
District.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8-C.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8-C, ordinance to establish the Flow
Way.
MR. HEATH: My name is Glenn Heath. I'm a principal
planner for County Comprehensive Planning Services. The Flow
Way CDD is a financial mechanism, a CDD for a previously
approved planned unit development entitled Mirasol. And if you
have any questions, I will endeavor to address it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Basically, tell me if I'm
correct on this. This is entirely financed within the Flow Way
District itself?.
MR. HEATH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that this has been agreed to by
the environmentalist community?
MR. HEATH: Well, I don't know about that. In fact, I guess
somebody's here to talk about that. I just found out a little while ago.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Yeah. Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is just to establish the
financing mechanism just to restore the Flow Way.
MR. HEATH: Well, it's the Flow Way plus it's the Mirasol
Development's infrastructure and services and, I guess, some of their
golf course development as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That doesn't say that in the
executive summary or did I miss that?
MR. OLLIFF: It actually includes in the executive summary
systems, facilities, services, water supplies, sewer, wastewater, water
Page 132
February 12, 2002
control and management, roads, bridges, and streetlights as part of
what would be allowable infrastructure improvements under the
CDD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
We'll go to the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one public speaker,
Nancy Payton.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I never would have guessed. Good
afternoon, Nancy.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation. It's our position that this approval is
premature, and these are our reasons: One, no Army Corps permit or
no Water Management permit, to our knowledge, has been issued for
this particular project. As you recall, this is a highly controversial
project because the incredible impacts to wetlands and wildlife
habitat. And as of yesterday afternoon, the county had not received
any notice that there had been either state or federal permit approvals.
I did receive in yesterday's mail an announcement that an
upcoming Water Management District agenda would be a permit
application for irrigation and dewatering, but not the environmental
resource permit, the ERP permit, the one that is of particular concern
to us. In fact, all we have in our files and what the county has in their
files is a December 10th letter to the consultant asking for additional
information -- information for the ERP permit.
Currently, the county relies upon the state and federal agencies
for the protection of wildlife, habitat, and wetlands; and, therefore,
we think, again, it's inappropriate to move ahead on this approval
until those permits are in place or we have some document from
those agencies that this is moving forward and this is an appropriate -
- an appropriate approval.
We -- in the packet there were no maps and there
Page 133
February 12, 2002
were no exhibits. So from reading your agenda packet, you have no
idea what the boundaries are, but I was resourceful and I saved --
whoops, down here, other side -- what was announced in the
newspaper, and it shows the boundaries of the proposed CDD which
are different from the boundaries of the approved PUD. I think you
can get the general idea that the lines don't match up, and what's
missing, the difference, is the preserve area and the Flow Way. And
even though this is called a Flow Way CDD, it doesfft appear to
include the Flow Way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does this look like a fast one
somebody's trying to pull on the old commissioners?
MS. PAYTON: Well, I'm not going to say that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can.
MS. PAYTON: And I don't think these concerns are
insurmountable. It just goes back to these longstanding issues that
we've had that there haven't been appropriate documents here, that
not everything has been made available to the public, and if there are
outstanding environmental issues, we shouldn't be moving forward
on these projects.
There is a reference to the mitigation lands, the preserve lands,
in the agenda packet on page 11, but you've got to be a puzzle solver
to understand what it says, and this seems to be an inappropriate
presentation to have these deletes and these boxes and these arrows
and these underlinings. I couldn't understand what -- what it said. I
gave up trying to understand, and I was angry because we shouldn't
have to be looking at a document such as this. It should be a nice
clean document. It makes reference to exhibits that don't exist in the
agenda packet; and, therefore, we can't reference what the heck is
going on.
Therefore, my request is fairly simple, is to continue this
particular agenda item until the questions are answered, we have the
Page 134
February 12, 2002
appropriate documents from the federal agencies and the state
agencies. If they require this document or this approval before they
move ahead, then I think we should see documents from them that
say that, not from the petitioner. Because I don't want to see a
playoff of the county to the permitting agencies. And, lastly, I don't
think it should be approved, quite frankly, until there are the permits
in place.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nancy, you did wonderful, but
there's -- there's one thing I'm really concerned. Suppose something
happened with the scheduling, you had to leave and we went ahead
with this. This would have been passed on through as just a normal
everyday item. I'm going to ask you, if you've ever got anything of
this magnitude again to please bring it to me just in case something
happens. I know you're here and I appreciate it. MS. PAYTON: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But if something happened where all
of a sudden you had to leave or one thing lead to another and it
became late in the day, it could have been a-- it could have been a
big mistake. Now, what do you say we hear from the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm -- oh, from the petitioner? Oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead if you've got a question for
Nancy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just said the same thing to her
yesterday. I said, we don't have the knowledge that she has, and I
said, So if you ever see there's a flag on the field, let me know.
Because I'm going in thinking everything that I read is all -- contains
all of the facts. And I'm glad you're here.
MS. PAYTON: And these may be easily resolved, but all the
information is not there for us to make an adequate decision at this
time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. It would be real easy now if
Page 135
February 12, 2002
you just wanted to ask for a continuance to sometime in the future or
else we can go through quite a bit of explaining back and forth, and
I'm sure it won't make a lot of people happy.
MS. BISHOP: Well, I certainly don't want to see what
happened just at the last petition, go back and forth and then end it
with a continuance, but I really -- for the record, Karen Bishop, agent
for the owner. I can't address what the public's package looks like
because I didn't prepare that. The application I submitted to the
county for review had exhibits in it showing the Flow Way, showing
what was a part of the Flow Way. And, yes, the boundaries of the
Flow Way are less than the overall PUD boundaries, but the Flow
Way CDD covers the construction and maintenance for the Flow
Way and for all those preserve areas which is inside of our part of the
permit for the Mirasol project.
It is my understanding that Thursday I'll be on the board for the
South Florida Water Management. It is on consent agenda for
approval for the ERP, not just the irrigation and the dewatering. The
Corps is not issued until after you get your water-quality permits, so I
couldn't have one before the other. And since Thursday is the day for
the district's permit, we expect the Corps' permit to be forthcoming.
We have been working two and a half years on this project with these
agencies and have done the things that they've asked us to do and
now are at the end.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And two weeks isn't going to
be the -- the end of the world if you might want to consider a
continuance, and if you could possibly take the time to work with
Nancy Payton so that we know that these things have been resolved,
it would be very much appreciated.
MS. BISHOP: And -- and normally I would accept that as -- as
an issue, but this is a funding mechanism. It's not an approval. This
is not a development order. This does not give me the right to go and
Page 136
February 12, 2002
start construction without those permits in place. There are many
other places where I have to adhere to regulations and that this is not
a regulatory document other than for the funding of it. It allows me
to go in and build infrastructure. It allows me to take care of
maintenance. It allows me to build this Flow Way which is
something we've been working on for two years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But, see, we didn't have any
of that information and -- and I -- I, for one, either would recommend
to deny or -- or ask you to postpone it because I don't have that
information. You might have submitted something with maps. We
didn't see it. All we've seen is the map that Nancy's given us that
talks about the Flow Way that isn't even included in here in the CDD
Flow Way or in the Flow Way CDD. And I have a lot of flags on the
field about this.
MS. BISHOP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'm telling you up front that's
where I'm going.
MS. BISHOP: And -- and, of course, I can't speak to the
application that was given to the commissioners. I made a,
apparently, incorrect assumption that the package I submitted with all
the little colored maps in the back were something you got when I
spoke to each one of you about this project. You know, I, of course,
had no idea that you were not -- in that time, you know, had a
complete application. The maps of the Flow Way still is what we've
all discussed all along.
I can discuss with my client if a postponement would be
something, but I'm going to suggest to you that coming back to you
in two weeks isn't going to make a difference as far as the knowledge
goes, because the information is the information. I have -- I will have
nothing more to add in two more weeks on this.
Page 13 7
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think what we're looking at is a
comfort level. I, right now, am not comfortable with what I have
before me, and the fact that I'm seeing two different maps that
conflict with each other gives me great reason for -- to have concern
about this whole project. Now, I think you could probably resolve it
in two weeks.
MS. BISHOP:
maps are the maps.
copy of these maps.
MR. HEATH:
Well, the maps aren't going to change. The
But I'm -- I'm at a loss of why you don't have a
I think I can explain that. I take responsibility
for that as staff. I'm new to the process, and it was rushed getting it
ready. There was an amendment -- the minute petition that you see
before you -- and I take responsibility for not having the exhibits
here, and I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, and I accept your
apology to myself anyways. Still -- it still leaves us with a void in
here, and I don't know if we want to spend all that time trying to
make it up right here. Normally we take the material and study it on
our own time. I spend the whole weekend, and I know the other
commissioners do too, going through everything that we have in our
possession. We don't like to be handed stuff when we get up here to
the dais and -- and just start from scratch with information that you
have in your possession and want to transmit to us. That's what we
need two more weeks for, as far as I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or a month or two months.
MS. BISHOP: And with all due respect to Glenn, the district
required us to make changes to this document up until the last minute
to get -- for our approval at our district permit. So the amended
document he has was based on the district's requirements to make
changes to the document. The maps didn't change though, just the
verbiage inside that document to cover the Flow Way and to cover
Page 138
February 12, 2002
the other parts of the mitigation that has to occur within this area.
I'm going to suggest to you that certainly I don't want to get
denied, and if that's what I'm looking at, I will absolutely postpone
for two weeks. But I do want you guys to know, there's not going to
be anything that's going to change with this other than the fact that
obviously you didn't have the maps so you'll have something to look
at.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And maybe a little more
information, right. Same with this --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Definitely will. We'll have more
information between now and then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And same with the way it's
prepared with the delete, delete, and the little numbers and things that
are very difficult to read. That was -- that was a very difficult -- I --
quite frankly, I couldn't figure it out.
MS. BISHOP: That's the way the district gave it to us. That's
the way we gave it back to him. We wanted him to see exactly what
was taken out from what was there before so it would be easier for
them to understand, 'cause he had the original document that was
prepared, and then when we submitted that to the district on the
December 10th letter, when we respond to that December 10th letter
that Nancy referred to, we had to make revisions. When those
revisions came back from the legal department, I forwarded them to
Glenn as soon as I got them, and so that's why we have it that way,
but I didn't realize that there wasn't maps included or I would have
gotten you some myself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Bishop, I'm sure you can
count the votes to my right, so I would imagine this is going to
continue, but before it does, I want to clarify something. The PUD
Page 139
February 12, 2002
went all the way to the Lee County line. Where does the Flow Way
start north on the project?
MS. BISHOP: The -- from the Lee County line south, a full
Section 10. Actually, I have some -- would you like some maps to
look at?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I've seen the map and I --
MS. BISHOP: I have some maps. It's Section !0, and a piece of
Section 15 is -- is the preserve and Flow Way, but the Flow Way
itself runs through Section 15, Section 16 and I believe it's Section 14
-- it's Old Cypress isn't 9? Is it, Old Cypress? And I think that -- I
want to believe that that's a different number. I don't know right off
the top of my head what section that is, but it goes through three
different projects, and so the CDD itself, even though -- the
boundaries of the CDD take up the project that is what we're going to
be -- the term "development" is what comes to mind developing on.
The stuff that's going to be preserve and Flow Way is a part of the
CDD's responsibility, but it isn't inside our CDD because at some
point we're going to give that away to somebody, either to Crew or
some other entity at one point. So we have removed that from our
CDD, but we, by virtue of our permits, must construct the Flow Way
and construct -- we must construct the mitigation and that this is just
the funding mechanism. We actually can't even fund this until I have
my permits. So this is just a formality of paperwork that allows us to
be ready so when I have my permits in my hand, not a minute before
then, I can fund the CDD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Get back to my question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Let's see if we can bring
this to a conclusion and move on because we're going to have plenty
of time to study this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what he's asking for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What am I asking for?
Page 140
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were asking for a conclusion
when you said--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess that you and I get
together so I can understand where the Flow Way begins so we don't
have to take up anybody else's time.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. That'll be fine. So, then, officially we're
requesting a continuance for two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next item --
MR. WHITE: Commissioners, are you going to officially act
upon that request?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to continue from
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
aye.
Second from Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4 to 0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we do that with all of
these?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're getting there.
there. With your guidance we'll get there.
We're getting
Item #8E
Page 141
February 12, 2002
ORDINANCE 2002-05 AMENDING CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS
AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VII, HOUSING
CODE FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY AS PROMULGATED BY ORDINANCE 89-6, AS
AMENDED, AMENDING SECTION 22-263 COMPLIANCE
WITH HOUSING STANDARDS, TO INCREASE MINIMUM
REQUIRED SPACE FOR DWELLINGS, AND REQUIRING
SMOKE DETECTORS - ADOPTED
Okay. I guess we're at E now, an ordinance to amend the ....
COMMISSIONER FIALA: D? Right? D?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. No. No. D will require a super
majority. We're going to have to come back to that one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we're going on to E, an ordinance
to amend the code of laws, ordinance of Collier County. Let's just
see if I can cut to the meat of it here. We'll let you go with that,
Michelle.
MS. ARNOLD:
enforcement director.
Okay. For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
I'm here to discuss with you a proposed
amendment to our minimum-housing ordinance, and there are three
changes that are being recommended in this ordinance. The first
change addresses a concern that we have with -- there's -- the current
ordinance is very unclear regarding whether or not we can require the
continued maintenance of residential units. The clarification that's
being proposed clarifies that we can require maintenance of
residential units regardless of whether or not they're occupied.
The second change would be the required space per dwelling
unit or the minimum requirement or the maximum requirement for
occupancy within a residential dwelling. We're, in this particular
revision, requesting an increase of that requirement. So we're
Page 142
February 12, 2002
changing the minimum requirements from 150 square foot for the
first occupant and 100 square foot thereafter to 200 square foot for
the first occupant and 150 square feet for each occupant thereafter.
Just to make that more -- a little bit more understanding, a
dwelling unit that's 1,000 square feet, our current code allows up to 9
occupants. This proposal would reduce it to 6 occupants.
Then the final change that's being recommended is the smoke
detector ordinance and that's -- change and that's being recommended
so that we're consistent with the minimum fire code provisions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any reason why -- that
we only increase the square footage to a additional 50? Why couldn't
we have gone to 1007
MS. ARNOLD: Well, in our research we -- we looked at many
other communities and what their regulations are, and we researched
back to see what the origins of the regulations were, and they date
back, and it's mostly when you're dealing with tenement housing and
those type of provisions where we came up with this particular
provision. Most people have the same as we currently have and we're
trying to -- we -- we thought that the 50 percent increase or 50-
square-foot increase was a little bit more reasonable taking in mind
some of the larger households.
I want to clarify too that this provision only relates to unrelated
occupants. It doesn't relate to the family, but we just thought that this
-- this increase would be a little bit more reasonable bearing in mind
our structure of households in the community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- over the years the square
footage of houses has increased historically. MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Probably 800 square feet was a
typical home.
Page 143
February 12, 2002
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But what we're seeing now is
homes that are over 2,000 square feet. MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are we truly addressing it
for today's -- in what we see in today's single-family home?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, we -- we would have the ability to
increase that standard further if the board sees fit. This is what's
being proposed by staff right now. We did take into consideration
that the minimum square footage for housing nowadays are greater,
but we didn't want it to be such an impact that it would -- was
unreasonable.
There was discussion that we had as a part of the analysis in
coming up with a recommendation for this proposal with residents in
areas like Golden Gate and Naples Manor, Naples Park, and they
were suggesting standards such as, rather than looking at the overall
square footage of the household, looking at the number of bedrooms.
We looked at standards with the Health Department; for example, the
number of bathrooms and looking at those types of things to equate to
the occupancy, but we couldn't come up with something that was --
that we felt could be supported legally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my last question is, how
do you propose to enforce it?
MS. ARNOLD: That -- that's a good question.
It's going to be a difficult code to enforce because we are going to
have to verify relationships more or less, and so it's not going to be an
easy one. We're going -- we're going to request information, but if
information is not provided to us, you know, we'll have to seek other
ways to try to enforce an overcrowding situation that we believe is
not -- one that is a family-related situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're going to ask for
Page 144
February 12, 2002
identification? Is that what you're saying?
MS. ARNOLD: We can ask for it, but if they deny it, we have
no recourse.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a lot of places that I see
overcrowding, single-family home or multi-family -- naturally multi-
family, the owners is not the occupant of the structure. So the -- how
do we bring in the owner of the property?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, typically, if we haven't a problem with a
house that is overcrowded, there are other types of violations that
exist in -- in that situation, we would notify both the owner and the
tenant in those instances. So if we don't get cooperation from the
tenant, we have the owner to be held responsible for compliance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may, I got serious concerns
over this as far as Immokalee goes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any way that if-- we could
craft this in such a way that Immokalee would be removed from this
particular ordinance, we could stay with the regional ordinance or
state statutes as they now read? This is going to have a heck of an
impact when -- at a time when we're doing some serious
housecleaning in Immokalee to remove substandard units, which I
fully endorse. But the problem is, is that you take a 10 by 50-foot
trailer, which is still fairly common in Immokalee, that might meet
the other codes and standards -- before you were allowed four and a
half residents, if you could ever come up with half a resident, for that
trailer. Now you would be allowed three. Now, that may not sound
like much, but if you're in a situation where that extra person's in
there to divide the rent, it can become a life-and-death situation to be
able to cover the other costs that these people may have. Plus a lot --
someone -- plus -- I lost my train of thought there -- for a moment
Page 145
February 12, 2002
there.
The other concern is that the houses in Immokalee, unlike the
standard houses for the rest of the county, have been growing in size.
They're basically smaller units that have been there forever, so that
we're going to have a problem that's completely different. And the
same rules, if we apply them there, it's going to be for all
considerations that are evident, it's not going to be fair. I had a
number of people in Immokalee ask me to speak on their behalf, and
they said that if for some reason this was continued, they would be
here in large numbers to speak at the next hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, you --
you said 10 by 50 trailer. You're talking about 500 square feet. Just
picturing 500 square feet and what this will allow is three people
within that trailer. Are you saying that the slum lords in Immokalee
want to pack in more?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I wouldn't necessarily use the
word "slum lords," but some of our taxpayers in Immokalee that
deserve same considerations of everyone else in the county would
like to probably hold the status quo, not so much for their own
benefit, because they collect X number of dollars for each unit and
they can rent every one they got. It's the person that's going in there
and how they're dividing the rent up amongst the other people there.
You're not talking the same situation when you're talking Immokalee.
It's a totally different world. And, you know, I'm all for rules and
regulations to apply and codes and housing to meet certain standards,
but we have to be a little bit realistic, and I can tell you right now that
even if we passed it, they're still going to ignore it for the most part.
And I don't think code would ever be able to be effective in enforcing
it, not that that's an excuse in itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I thought your wishes was
to clean up Immokalee.
Page 146
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It certainly is but it's not to displace -
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you -- you think this code
would clean it up?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, not per se. I don't see how --
I don't know who's talking out in the audience, but I'm going to
ask them to refrain from talking anymore. If they want to carry on a
conversation, please go out in the hall, or if they want to speak, to put
their name up front here, and then they'll get their five minutes to be
able to speak.
I apologize for that. Go ahead, Donna.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought this was partially what it's
aimed at, and I'm sure that another area is in my community, and I
feel it's long overdue. And I appreciate your concern for your
constituents, but three people in a 10 by 50 trailer is -- is getting to be
quite a few as it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know, especially --
especially with -- in many cases we found 12 mattresses in one of the
two-bedroom places in Naples Manor, and they're charging each
person with a mattress per week. I mean -- so it's the landlord that's
benefiting by this, not the residents.
But I wanted to just take a fast moment, as you were talking
about enforcing back before. I got this thing from Habitat for
Humanity, and they were talking about the families that they're
pulling out of some of these houses. One in Naples Manor alone, the
family of five, they live in a metal container 12 by 27 with only one
window at one end. That's it. No partitions. And the bathroom is in
a comer of the metal container. And that's right here in Collier
County in East Naples. And then they give other examples as well,
and you know, they might be able to give you some tips on where to
Page 147
February 12, 2002
go for first -- looking for deplorable conditions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. If I can address that. Our
present ordinance totally covers that already. They don't allow it with
the standard that we have already to take place. Has it been
enforced? No. The problem is -- the reason ! picked a 10 by 50 foot
trailer is because when I was first married 36 1/2 years ago -- but
who's counting -- that's the trailer that my wife and I lived in and
three of my children were born. So I know what the space is on it,
and that's why I put down that particular one and figured it out.
Actually, if I took one a little bigger, probably the proportionment
would be a -- even greater.
But the thing is, the impact it will have on the law-abiding
citizen, is the big part, and I'm not talking about the rest of the world.
I know what the problem is in Golden Gate and East Naples. These
are established neighborhoods with real houses, not little metal
shelves for people to live in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me add just here, but where
landlords break the backs of the working people in their -- in their
rent-- rents. So, I mean, we're talking about--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you there, but the thing
is that you have owner operated -- owner trailers -- people that own
their own trailers. You have people on lots where the landlord is
nothing more than the house owner. Sure, I mean, you can put this
into effect, and the thing we're trying to eliminate -- this present
ordinance does just fine in Immokalee is, like you said, the
subdividing of these trailers so there is, like, 6-foot sections or 4-foot
sections with plywood, and they have to move them out of the way to
get on through. Totally unacceptable.
Now we're going to the far extreme where we're going to tell
them that no longer will it be permitted to have four people in a 10 by
50 foot trailer, and while that might work here in the coastal region,
Page 148
February 12, 2002
you're gonna -- you're gonna be -- if they ever did follow the letter of
the law -- and I guarantee you they won't, and I can almost tell you
for a fact code enforcement can't enforce it -- it would be -- displace a
lot of people unjustly. I mean, we're not talking about squalid living
conditions. We're talking about trailers that are going to meet the
standards and houses that will meet the standards, and this is
something that's been their way of life for some time. I'm not saying
it's incorrect to allow a certain number of vehicles in there to make
sure the yards are kept up, but take good consideration. The state put
together their statutes with these limitations in it for a very good
reason.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aren't we talking about exempting
people of the same family -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- from these things? So what
we're really doing is controlling a situation where multiple families
are crowding into a single facility. One of the positive impacts of
that could very well be that it will result in a reduction of the rent,
because if-- if a landlord can rent a place for $1,000 a month and
split it up between four people paying 250, he will continue to -- to
charge $1,000 a month. But if he's told he can't put more than two
people or three people in there, if he wants to rent it, he's got to come
down on rent. It seems to me that it might have a positive effect in
that respect, but -- but it -- it also appears to me that we should
always have some humanitarian exemption from our enforcement
with respect to this, so that if there -- what we don't want to do is
throw people out in the street. MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm sure that's not our intent.
We would have flexibility in enforcing it under those circumstances,
would we not?
Page 149
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. In-- in all situations we give some -- the
violater of any of our codes an opportunity to correct whatever the
condition is. If we're talking about someone having to find an
alternate place and it's going to take them some time, of course, we
would work with an individual to find an alternate place to reside.
I just wanted to mention something that Commissioner Fiala
brought up. We are trying to work with Habitat, for example, to --
where they have situations where their prospective homeowners are
coming out of situations that don't meet our minimum housing code.
They're allowing us to come into those units and try to get some of
those problems corrected. So ...
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, that's a
great analogy. I never thought about that, actually -- you know,
discussing it. The most likely scenario is we're going to get lower
rent, and I'm sure Commissioner Coletta would -- would like to see
more money in the pockets of the people who work out in the fields
of Immokalee. So I make a motion that we approve the ordinance
change.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Discussion. I'd just-- I'm
sorry. Would you like something? Do you have some comment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public speakers.
MS. FILSON: I don't have any public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Donna. Thank you, Sue.
MR. WHITE: Just want to close the public hearing, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only comment I want to make is
that I still have serious reservations about this, and it's going to seem
Page 150
February 12, 2002
kind of strange that I'm going to vote for it, but the reason I'm going
to vote for it, because I want to reserve the right to be able to bring it
back again. With that, if there's no more comments --
MR. WHITE: I'm assuming you've closed the public hearing,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't realize this was a -- will this
take a super majority to pass it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to close the public
hearing.
MR. WHITE: No. It does not require a super majority.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then let's close the public
hearing. We have a motion. We have a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we already do. Thank you. All
those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4 to 0. Thank you.
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2002-06 AMENDING CHAPTER 74, THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE, TO AUTHORIZE AFTER-THE-FACT
APPLICATIONS FOR IMPACT FEE WAIVERS NOT TO
EXCEED $7,500 PER DEVELOPMENT APPLICABLE ONLY TO
SPECIFIED NOT-FOR-PROFIT, FEDERAL INCOME TAX
ENTITIES THAT ACQUIRED ITS COLLIER COUNTY
BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE WAIVER ELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 7, 2001 AND
OCTOBER 13,2001 - ADOPTED
Page 151
February 12, 2002
Okay.
believe this might be Commissioner Coyle, 9-A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about F? How about 8-F?
MR. OLLIFF: You have 8-F.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8-F. Excuse me. That's correct.
Adoption of an ordinance to amend Chapter 74 of the County Code
of Laws and Ordinances.
MR. TINDALL: Good afternoon.
MR. OLLIFF: Phil, I'm going to cut you a little bit short, ifI
can. I think the board understands what the issue is here and we just
open the floor for any questions that the board might have.
MR. TINDALL: We did present this item and present all the
facts on January the 8th, so this is just follow-up to the board's
direction. Phil Tindall, impact fee coordinator.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I must state, to be
consistent of my feeling on this, I can't support it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we're at a very big
disadvantage here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's not a disadvantage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I hear you, but I tell you how
I'm going to do. I know which direction you're going to go.
Obviously we've got two and two here without Carter and I don't see
how -
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What did I say?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I would assume that, you
know, the fact that it's back again -- and this is to help out the
nonprofits, and it's going to require three people to support it to keep
it going, and we have two on record as being opposed to it. So the
only way we can save the day on this is to all vote it down and then
bring it back; am I correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that -- Commissioner Carter
And the next item would be -- where are we now? Oh, I
Page 152
February 12, 2002
back?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
a God.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
enough.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was planning to.
filibustering.
Commissioner Carter, are you out there?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I am out here.
Mr. Carter is back. Oh, my. There is
All you had to do is talk long
It's called
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You couldn't have planned a better
time to come back aboard.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I needed this one because I
know it would go 2-2 without my vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He knows right where we are,
doesn't he?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, you know what the
issue is.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The adoption of the ordinance to
amend Chapter 74.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's a case-by-case situation and -
- I mean, I'm familiar with the situation, and I've not changed from
where I was last time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thanks. And I could not copy. What
did he say?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He says he still holds his position
same as last time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. T1NDALL: Mr. Chairman, I was asked to make one quick
statement for the record, the purpose of clarification, and that is that
Page 153
February 12, 2002
the adoption of this ordinance amendment in front of you does not, in
any way, change the scope and the -- of the original provision that
was adopted back on October the 9th. Anyone who wants -- any
entity that wants to come forward from this day forward and -- and
apply for a waiver still has that opportunity to do so. This really only
affects those two agencies that we discussed on January the 8th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second it.
And is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 3 to 2. It passes. Thank you.
MR. TINDALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2002-07 RE PUDA-2001-AR-1494, KAREN
BISHOP OF PMS, INC. OF NAPLES, REPRESENTING KENCO
DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD
TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS THE RICHLAND PUD FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS FROM 650 TO 400 AND INCREASING THE
COMMERCIAL ACREAGE FROM 21.8 ACRES TO 23 ACRES
Page 154
February 12, 2002
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD -
ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And now we move on to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8-D. 8-D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, 8-D. Well, actually, I don't
know if they're ready. We'll go to 8-D first. Well, do we want to
finish up? Are you ready to finish now? MS. BISHOP: Well, he's with me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We continued that to another
meeting. Not to that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can do that today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We could do that again just for
practice.
Okay. We're at Item D. Karen Bishop, Naples Kenco
Development and the rezone.
MS. BISHOP: That's us.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any disclosures on the part of the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I watched the Planning
Commission on this item, and I also talked to a lot of constituents that
are in this PUD of Pebble Brooks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have talked with Ms.
Bishop about this issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I have talked with Karen
Bishop about this issue. This is the same as Pebble Brook; right? It
keeps saying Richland, but it is Pebble Brook; right? MS. BISHOP: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I met with the petitioner.
Page 155
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also have. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Good aftemoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows. Before I get into presentation, I'd like to hand
out some information I was requested to give out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know we can't read it now;
right? Unless you want to give us a few hours here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't even know if I want to
accept that because that is more than --
MR. BELLOWS: It's just one page change. I just included
everything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think in the future, Mr.
Bellows, we might be able to receive this possibly the Friday before
the meeting?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the page change?
MR. BELLOWS: The page change deals with the transportation
section of the PUD document, and I'll give you that page here. It's
page 6-3. The reason I provided you with the entire PUD document
is that it affected the pagination of the rest of the pages, so I felt it
was easier just to give you a complete set.
The last stipulation was added. It was a request that came from
the Planning Commission dealing with the phasing of the
development. It's referenced in the executive summary, and we'll get
into it during the presentation.
Okay. For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner is requesting
to amend the Richland PUD. As you can see on the visualizer, the
subject side is located on the southeast comer of the Immokalee Road
and Collier Boulevard. The PUD is partially developed residential in
the southern area which is well underway of construction and mostly
developed. The commercial-tract phase, the first phase, is under
Page 156
February 12, 2002
construction and completed, contains a Publix supermarket. The
request is to increase the size of the commercial tract area by
approximately 1. -- or 2.5 acres, and I have that shown here on the
master plan. This is the currently approved master plan, and the area
to be added is the shaded area. This is a residential tract. Both now
become a part of the commercial tract.
MR. OLLIFF: I think it's 3.2 acres.
MR. BELLOWS: 3.2 acres. Thank you. This is the -- would be
the revised master plan resulting from the increase in commercial
acreage. The applicant is requesting to increase the commercial tract
-- square footage allowed in the commercial tract from 150,000
square feet to 231,000 square feet. And they're also reducing the
number of dwelling units, let's see, from 400 units or from 650 units
to 400 units.
The traffic-impact study indicates that the project trips will not
have a significant impact on the Collier Boulevard or Immokalee
Road based on current approved standards in the Growth
Management Plan. The difference in site-generated trips, the
petitioner has submitted a traffic study that shows that the difference
in trips versus what can be generated currently under the current
zoning versus what can be generated under the proposed amendment
is negligible and will not result in significant increases in traffic.
The environmental-impact review indicates that there were no
significant impacts to the project based on this change of the
environmental preserve areas. You can see depicted here will not be
impacted by this proposed amendment.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this project
on January 17th, and they recommended approval by 7 to 0 vote with
one abstention.
The concerns that were raised during the Planning Commission
basically dealt with some of the land uses approved in the PUD. The
Page 157
February 12, 2002
petitioner agreed to eliminate some of those uses and -- and this is
within an activity center. And most of the uses in there were carried
over from previous approvals before the Board of County
Commissioners. And staff is supportive of the uses that are currently
within the PUD document at this time.
The issues that were involved, landscaping, the petitioner agreed
to provide landscape language onthe master plan. We also had a
requirement to provide an interconnect from the commercial tract --
from the residential tract into the commercial tract. This interconnect
would have a sidewalk on one side and metal gate. The Planning
Commission recommended a metal gate. The petitioner felt that the
gate should be similar to the other gates within the development, a
wooden gate. But the request of the Planning Commission was that
this gate -- gated-entry feature into the commercial tract be a metal
gate.
The other issues that came up were -- dealt with landscape
buffer between these two tracts, and the petitioner has submitted
conceptual or a site plan dealing with the landscaping. As you can
see, it deals with a 6-foot-tall wall with vegetative berm and elevation
view of the wall and the plantings. We also have a cross-section
showing the berm and landscaping. Staff was also recommending that
the building heights be restricted. And that came up in the Planning
Commission, that we limit the building heights to 35 feet for any
structure within 60 feet of the residential-tract boundary line. That is
-- it came up during the Planning Commission meeting.
Staff is recommending approval. I have no further
correspondence after the Planning Commission. Several people did
show up at the Planning Commission to express concern about the
development, and that's why it's not on the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine is a simple question. On page
1, very last sentence, it talks about the building height for any
Page 158
February 12, 2002
structure within 60 feet of the residential, but on page 13, I think it is,
it has the same sentence except it says (as read): "Any structure
within 50 feet." So is it 50 or 60?
MR. BELLOWS: The PUD document references the 60 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sixty.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some of the questions, the
concerns in the Planning Commission meeting was the uses in the
commercial districts.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So summarize what the --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We eliminated the -- some of the uses
such as -- and we have a list here. I meant to get mine copied. But
we eliminated used-car dealer, boat dealers, gas dealers, drinking
places, laundry services, medical-equipment rental, car washes, TV
repair, coin-operated amusements, furniture repair, refrigeration
services. Those were mostly found in the higher, like, C-5, C-4 type
zoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the water retention or
the water runoff, is that going to be in the Pebble Brook Lakes? Is
that what --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the amendment will not affect the
currently approved water management system design. We can show
on the master plan there's an existing water management system of
lakes and things. The proposed change will not affect any of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's all the questions I
have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I do have one thing. I guess
it wasn't included in there. Tell me, no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued for any commercial structure over the current-approved
1,500 -- 150,000 square feet maximum until the four-lane capacity of
both Immokalee Road from Collier Boulevard to Wilson and on
Page 159
February 12, 2002
Collier Boulevard from Irmnokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road
is available.
MR. BELLOWS: This was part of the handout I gave you. We
included that language in the PUD document now. Staff originally
did not have that as part of the staff recommendation because we base
our recommendations on the Land Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan. Right now the project as proposed is consistent
with the currently approved land-- level of service standards for the
county. The Planning Commission felt that any change, especially
any increase in the square footage of the commercial, would have
additional traffic impacts on Collier Boulevard and on Immokalee
Road. Given the fact that construction is occurring on Immokalee
Road and the two-lane nature of Collier Boulevard, they felt any
additional traffic --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So this is a part of the document?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's now part of the document that I
gave you today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Have you agreed with it?
MS. BISHOP: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
at.
It's the staff's recommendation.
Okay. That's what I wanted to get
MS. BISHOP: It wasn't staff recommendation. It was the
Planning Commission's recommendation, not staffs.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, staff did not have it in there. We just
put it in because we felt you should have a copy of it -- of the PUD
document with it in there in case that's the way the board decided to
lean.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're not recommending it?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you support it.9
Page 160
February 12, 2002
MR. BELLOWS: From a professional planning standpoint, I
don't think that's a wise -- to put such limitations on a project that was
based on currently adopted codes. I think that would open us up to
some real serious problems, and I think the county attorney should
answer that question.
MR. WEIGEL: And if I may. Thank you. A couple comments,
in regard to the document that Mr. Bellows passed out to you. Please
note that the cover sheet indicates that this is a -- the PUD prepared
by Ms. Bishop's company, PMS, Inc., but what she had prepared did
not have these two paragraphs, paragraphs 8 and 10 which appeared
in 6-3 -- 6-3. Those were paragraph additions made by the Planning
Commission as Ray explained to you. But I want to make it perfectly
clear that the document submitted by Ms. Bishop that's been through
the review did not have those in there.
Now, they were included as a -- just to make things easier to see
them in the context of where they would be, could otherwise have
been provided in side sheets. And in response to Mr. Bellows'
response to your question about the 150,000 square feet, the
limitation on further -- was it building permits or COs -- the fact is, is
that he's absolutely correct, that from the legal standpoint, it's nice if
you can get agreement from the developer, owner in regard to that.
But it appears that there are no violations of standard in place in
regard to what they propose to do. You're not going into
inconsistencies with the Growth Management Plan. We're not going
into deficits of level of service in the roadways. The standards that
we have to review these things appear to all be copacetic.
Now, I know that I have learned secondarily -- and either Ray or
Ms. Wolfe can respond in regard to traffic impacts and things of that
nature, but of the many things that are looked at to determine
compatibility and consistency with our standards, I'm told with the
diminution of residential and the increase in commercial, that the
Page 161
February 12, 2002
kinds of statistics which differ somewhat from the staff review and
the developer's provision, that they all fall within the standards that
we look at that would not allow us from a legal standpoint to say,
oops, this is a deficiency, we will deny you the ability to have the
issuance of COs. I don't see the basis there legally under the
standards that we have, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But the petitioner could request that
it be put in.
MR. WEIGEL: You can request anything. This is a bit of a
negotiating process, but I will tell you that -- that it's not an
appropriate demand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're not saying anything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. Dead silence in the room. I
personally love it myself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go to the petitioner,
please?
MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, agent for the
owner. I want to just go over this project a little bit and then I'll let
Rich and the traffic guy address the traffic issues with you guys on a
few things.
This project was originally zoned in 1990 and this is now 2001
and that commercial has taken -- as I heard earlier today, some of the
things take about 10 to 20 years to get developed. This is one of
those that took over 10 years. When this was originally platted in
1997 the line for that commercial was determined at that point. If
you read the documents, you guesstimate what your acreages are
going to be; you guesstimate how much residents you're going to
have; you guesstimate how much -- it's close, but it's not exactly that
number. When we platted that line, we chose the line that you see
there because it was a geometrical, easy way to stop. You look at our
old master plan, which is what Ray was talking about, the 3.2 acres,
Page 162
February 12, 2002
that wasn't geometrically a good place to stop. So we didn't take it
farther into that tract, so that tract was designed and in place since
1997 all as commercial.
The issue here before you is that when we originally did this
PUD, we never-- actually, this was an older PUD, so the criteria for
putting these things together was different. There was never
addressed at that time the acreage changes. And what happened was,
when we increased the acreages, we didn't increase the square
footage on there. And so the reality is that what we're looking for
here is the square footage to compensate for that extra commercial
that we had determined during our PUD process before and platting
process. And we now have put that in the document as a cap at 231 -
- 231,000 square foot, which is about 10,000 square foot an acre
which is typical for commercial uses.
At the Planning Commission, when we went through the list, the
same thing happened that I saw earlier, is that Mark Strain diligently
went through all these things and said, Are you really going to have
these there? And, of course, no, we didn't intend to put a gas dealer
there. We didn't really intend to put a boat dealer there. So we
removed those uses out of the -- out of the activity center. However,
I want to remind you, that is where these uses should go to some
degree rather than have them spread all over. These activity centers
are made for these kinds of intensities. We kept pretty much a
gambit of uses that gives the center the ability to be flexible for the
future. If, for instance, we put in an insurance guy and then he
doesn't make it, then we can bring in the mailbox guy who can -- you
know, and then if he doesn't make it, then we can put in a watch
repair guy. And if he doesn't make it, then the computer guy goes in.
So you have these uses to allow for a successful activity center.
We are the first ones on the block in this activity center, so we're
looking at this comer which is -- for all intents and purposes, is going
Page 163
February 12, 2002
to be developed out as planned on your comp plan, which is activity
center uses. The density band which we have the ability to do a lot of
density here, the market wouldn't allow you -- us to do that. Our
density which was at 650 which was still below the 7 units an acre,
we have dropped down to 400 units. We actually only have
approximately 351 built, but we've left about 50 units in there
available if we go back. Instead of having single-family lots, we go
with attached villas which are two units. That gives us some
flexibility to change that, which means there's 250 units or 200 units
that you guys can use for your workforce housing somewhere else
that's not being utilized here.
This isn't really complicated as far as the kind of thing we're
doing. The gates -- I have a little bit of a problem with the metal
gate. We have gates at the entrance, at both of our entrances. We
intend to put a gate here (indicating). One of the problems with
saying it has to be a metal gate, you know, I worry about the
maintenance. I worry about, you know, breakdown and-- you know,
the wooden gates, whenever they come through our gate and
someone breaks it, within a day somebody's got a new arm there and
we've got it fixed and it's okay, but these metal gates are a little more
complicated. So I kind of worry about that in itself. But, you know,
if I have to live with a metal gate, then we'll do that. But as far as the
CO, the building and the traffic issues, I can't agree to that. So we
need to discuss that.
I have my transportation here, Rich Yovanovich here to discuss
those issues, and Dawn Wolfe is here also. That's the problem we
have. This project would-- I would lose the ability to utilize this
based on having to wait several years, which is essentially what we're
talking about here for -- for that -- that improvement to be in place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before you go away,
Ms. Bishop --
Page 164
February 12, 2002
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Water retention that's going to go
into the lakes, showing here into the residential.
MS. BISHOP: The water management system for the whole
project was constructed -- I would say the final piece which is this
lake here -- that final piece was constructed two years ago so the
overall -- this is an overall water management system. All water
from the commercial system goes through the lakes. It has to meet
water-quality standards. We have a controlled elevation of about 13
1/2, and since I live right next to the outfall structure, there's never
been water gone out that. So all the water on this site literally stays
on this site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for answering my
question. So then I must ask you, what's going to happen here is the
residents are going to take over the residential area, homeowners
association, and then commercial is going to be a different entity.
MS. BISHOP: They are all a member of the same association.
It's a master association.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So they would share in
the maintenance of the water retention areas?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. They do. They have
25 percent based on their area of land and what their uses are. They
have 25 percent commitment to -- to the cost of maintaining those
facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's go to the gate to
interconnect with the residential. Is that going to be constructed in --
next to a house or is
it--
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. What we've looked at is, we have that
30-foot buffer that we have offered up between the residential homes.
If you'll look on your buffer plan, which I believe was provided to
Page 165
February 12, 2002
you, we will move that gate to the inside of that buffer so that there's
not a gate right next to Lot 66, which the woman that owns that has
children, and she expressed to us that she didn't want to see that gate
there next to her. So we agreed to move that gate within that 30-foot
landscape buffer so that there is stacking available at that point. So if
we move it right to the edge of the landscape buffer on what would
be the northern edge of it, then you've got 30 feet there for stacking
which you can certainly get a car and a half in there.
And, of course, we're looking also to do some
traffic-calming things in this neighborhood, because we have those
loop roads and you can get up to some pretty quick speeds. So I
envision this road to have at least one speed bump on it and that that
gate will be farther out there. We'll also be interconnecting the
sidewalks so that you have pedestrian access also to the commercial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the comments that I got
from the residents in the area mainly had to do with some of the
commercial uses, and -- and I think that was taken care of in the
Planning Commission.
MS. BISHOP: Painfully, but true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about United States
Postal Group 4311 ? Is that still in there?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, it is. And that was not objected to by the --
by the homeowners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not done yet.
MS. BISHOP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So 4311 is a major distribution
center. I mean, I don't have any problem with all the other
identification -- code identification in the postal group, but 4311 is
the major postal.
MS. BISHOP: It's history.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I haven't gone
Page 166
February 12, 2002
through all the other uses, so I might continue later on. There is one
more. The last one, 28 (as read): "Any other uses which are
compatible in nature in foregoing uses permitted by the planning
service director."
MS. BISHOP: That's typical language.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know it is, and it typically
gets us in trouble.
MS. BISHOP: That's because what happens is -- and I
appreciate the fact that it has gotten you in trouble. It doesn't
typically get you in trouble, but it has gotten you in trouble, and I can
only think of one example, maybe two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can think of plenty of them.
MS. BISHOP: But, typically, what you have is you have these
SIC groups changing, and they change their names and, you know,
what -- like, Mailboxes, Inc., that wasn't even a business ten years
ago. Now it's a business.
So what it's intended to do -- and if it's not specifically listed in
here, then, even though it may be compatible, I can't -- I can't access
it or utilize it because it's not specifically -- specifically listed unless I
come back to a public hearing to add one use, so there's where that
goes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you mind removing that,
and if there is a use that does -- a new use that does pop up, which I
can't imagine there is, that you can come back and do a PUD
amendment for that use?
MS. BISHOP: I'm not going to suggest that's something I'm
going to argue about so ...
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see a shake -- head shake.
MS. BISHOP: I would rather not take it out, but -- because a
PUD zoning amendment for just one use seems to be, in all due
respect, a waste of your time. But if that's -- means that much to you,
Page 167
February 12, 2002
then -- then I'll remove that section from there.
lists here, and in theory this should cover it.
that.
I have a gambet of
So I will be happy to do
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make sure I
understand what we're doing here. You're reducing the number of
residential units and you're increasing the square footage of
commercial space. Residential units generate trips. Commercial
space collects trips.
MS. BISHOP: Attracts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Attracts trips. But much of the
attraction you expect to be from existing passing traffic. That's what
the planning staff tells me. So on balance, we are not increasing the
traffic burden on the roads. Is that a correct statement?
MR. BELLOWS: That's the information that is in the
information submitted by the applicant. Our internal staff made an
estimate of a slight increase of traffic. I don't know if transportation
department has their own figures.
MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning department
director, for the record. We did do an evaluation of both the
information submitted by the applicant as well as our own internal
calculations, and generally speaking, there will be a net reduction, as
we tried to explain, out under the Growth Management Impact
section of anticipated gross new trips out on the network. A lot of the
trips that would be associated, quite frankly, with the increased
commercial area are already out there on the system seeking
destinations closer into the urban area. So even though in some case
you may have, instead of just going on a Saturday, you're now going
on a Saturday and a Wednesday. Those trips would otherwise still be
on the network system and a large portion of them, due to the fact
Page 168
February 12, 2002
that this is a very isolated opportunity for major commercial on the
way out to the Estates and to Immokalee, where there's few other
opportunities for major shopping opportunity, that you're going to see
actually a net reduction to other roadways within the transportation
system, such as Immokalee Road west of 951, Vanderbilt Beach
Road, sections of Collier Boulevard south of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Because now the receiver of those generated trips, those which are
generally created by residential units, can now be satisfied closer to
home.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the net effect is we're not
placing a bigger burden on our roadways?
MS. WOLFE: Theoretically, yes, and I do believe that you will
be seeing a reduction on other sections of road, although functionally
and from an operational-impact point, just directly adjacent to the
development, there's going to probably have to be some additional
improvements, but fortunately where those operational movements
occur, the county has completed a large portion of the four-laning
improvements that will also be connected into and under our program
in the next three years. So we see four-laning across the majority of
the commercial frontage, the ability to put more traffic to and through
without impeding the flow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- the Planning Commission
has made a recommendation which I think makes a lot of sense, but --
but I'm afraid we're missing something here. If it's not going to
increase traffic on the roads, why would there be a need to phase the
development to provide additional -- to the process of providing
additional capacity?
MS. WOLFE: We, as staff, were requested by the Planning
Commission to generate the language which is now contained in the
document before you. Based on the fact -- and we did state this fact,
what we believed to be a fact of the technical analysis, that there
Page 169
February 12, 2002
would not be a net overall increase. There's going to be more trips
out there. They still have residential units to build -- how the traffic
moves around, because not all the commercial is built yet, is you're
going to see more traffic entering onto the site. But a lot of it's
already out there on the road and we tried to explain that. And under
our current Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, we
have certain measures that we have to test against. This application -
- this change has passed those measures, but we do have a level of
service problem out there. But we have, at the board's action in
December, programmed those deficiencies, not directly at this
intersecting location, four major capacity improvements.
It's -- a lot of it is a perception issue. South of this area you have
one too many cars trying to make a left mm where you don't have a
left-mm lane. All of a sudden, we go from a Measured Service B to a
Level of Service F instantaneously. And -- but a lot of it is a
perception issue. And, yes, this is kind of a negotiating deal and a lot
of individuals' perceptions, I believe, lead to the fact that we see a
problem, an incident occurs. Traffic backs up immediately. It takes
an hour and 45 minutes to get from the Estates into town. Everyone's
hearing it. Again, we all experience it. And although we say we're
meeting all the criteria, saying that we're going to start a road
construction three years out still leaves a lot of people hesitant in
reviewing and saying, go ahead and build something.
This case is -- and I think you'll not often find me citing or
recommending conditions for the applicant, but we do have a lack of
retail and shopping opportunity out in this area. Therefore, that
means the system within the urban area that's already overburdened
and we're trying to catch up on has to take on these retail and
shopping-opportunity trips as well as employment. We've now
moved one of those commercial opportunities closer to where the
residential trips are.
Page 170
February 12, 2002
So one of the arguments of, if I build more, I have less impacts
on the roadway system -- well, I'm building more closer to where the
need is at, so I'm helping out the system somewhere else. I don't
know how else to say -- it comes down to a perception issue.
Yeah, you're going to see a little bit more conflicts right around
that location, but we've got some improvements out there, and I think
the improvements that have been opened up to traffic have improved
the flow of traffic and made things easier for the individuals living
out east of 951 specifically a lot. We've got that traffic signal
operating better at 951, and we've extended those improvements
south of 951. So we have dual mm lanes coming off of 951 and the
like.
So it's very difficult to say and these reports -- we go, Well, it's a
Level of Service B today, but tomorrow it can be a Level of Service F
because on a two-lane road it's that quick, to go from a B to an F.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So bottom line is that-- your
feeling is that there isn't sufficient impact on the roads to warrant a
provision to phase this in? Although, I don't think it makes a lot of
sense, but you don't think the data supports that.
MS. WOLFE: The data does not support phasing this project in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may weigh in on this, because
we're talking about District 5 that's going to be impacted by this and
they will be impacted favorably, the Publix market in the shopping
plaza going down where -- at Pebble Brook there, now on the comer
of 951 and Immokalee, is making a big difference to the people out as
far as OrangeTree and beyond. And as you probably know, we are
working on commercial entities out in the Estates, but because of the
population density being what they are, we can't expect major
markets to be in there the next couple of years. And there's a need for
services, and that's one of the things the master plan has been
working on. Even though they'll come up with the solutions of where
Page 171
February 12, 2002
they can go doesn't mean they're going to go in there in the near
future.
And also, too, keep in mind that 951 is kind of unique in the fact
that one side of the road is more or less determined to be commercial,
the other side of the road isn't because of the -- just the general layout
with the canal and the Estates use, you get all the way down to Davis
Boulevard and all that. So this is an opportunity to improve the lives
of the people that live out there in the eastern part of Immokalee
Road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Commissioner Coletta, I
agree that commercial is predominantly on one side of the road, and
what we need to do is put some more affordable-housing
opportunities on the other side of the road so that they have a place to
work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you, and I think that lays
true with the whole county as a whole, that we need to distribute it
throughout the county and not put the total burden on one side of
Immokalee Road or Golden Gate City. I think Commissioner Coyle
is going to come up with some good ideas for us in his neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think, based upon our discussion,
I've already solved the traffic problem. All we need to do is build one
of these major developments at every large intersection and -- and
we've solved the traffic problem.
MS. WOLFE: I actually don't find so much humor in that
statement because through the years working at the local, state and
back at the local level, I've often had that proposed to me. Well, the
more trips I have, I end up having a negative impact, and you can go
way too far one way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was -- I was being facetious.
You understand that, don't you?
Page 172
February 12, 2002
MS. WOLFE: Well, no. I've had applications come forward
that have said absolutely that, and I said, No, I don't think we're going
to go in that direction. But this seems -- this is a different animal. But
I -- I -- believe me, I truly appreciate your statement on that one, and
we want to be cautious as we go forward with these and look at them
individually as to what truly benefits or detriments they pose to the
community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich is only going
to address the issue -- that one issue of the Planning Commission. I
don't think that we're going to go there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm happy to not relive an earlier
experience from today, so it's like Groundhog Day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you'll save that lake at
Goodlette Comers.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I was going to use your statement about
having a major commercial on every comer to my benefit when I
come back in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually, when you come back,
we're going to ask you to stock the lake. Is there any public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich, and he just spoke.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
That's it?
Well, the Planning Commission must
have done an excellent job with the public.
MS. BISHOP: Excuse me. I do need to put on the record, there
are some -- little things in the documents, some references to
ordinances and things that need to be cleaned up, and I've agreed to
do that with Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT: It's just technical stuff so --
Page 173
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We really wouldn't understand,
would we?
MS. BISHOP: We won't confuse you with the plats.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, is there
something you would like to add to this?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just sitting back enjoying the show;
right?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you would close the public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I would. Close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve it with staff stipulations, Planning Commission stipulations
except for the number of square feet dealing with the capacity out
there as that it clearly has demonstrated that it's going to decrease
traffic instead of increase traffic. And two other things noted in the --
the uses. Use 25, United States postal group, I would like it to say,
"Except for 4311 and include those other two postal uses that are in a
C-3 -- predominantly C-3, and removing Use 28, which is any other
comparable use."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a
second? Okay. I have a second from Commissioner Coyle. Thank
you. Is there any other discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Take a vote. All those in
Page 174
February 12, 2002
favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The ayes have it 5 to 0.
Thank you.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you know, by the way,
disclosures. I did talk with Karen Bishop.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, you did. Everybody. I spoke to everybody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Item #9A
STAFF DIRECTED TO REPEAL THE EXISTING ORDINANCE
REGARDING THE COMMUNITY OF CHARACTER COUNCIL
ORDINANCE
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Moving on to 9-A. Commissioner
Coyle, you're on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. The -- the Board of County
Commissioners established a Community of Character Council
sometime late last year before I came on -- on the board, and it's my
belief, in talking with legal counsel and others, that an error was
made in designating a member of the Board of County
Commissioners as a voting member of this particular council. Doing
so essentially places that council under the Sunshine provisions.
Secondly, there's another complication. The board has not--
and I don't think there's any likelihood they will allocate funds for the
purpose of carrying out the functions of the Community Character
Council; and, consequently, the council itself will have to do a lot of
Page 175
February l2,2002
things on their own. They'll have to work together. That means that
-- that -- having subcommittees which they will have to have,
preparing newsletters or fliers, stuffing envelopes, doing a lot things
like that, will require that they work together in small groups and
participate in fund-raising activities.
I -- I can't imagine how they can ever accomplish their mission
as a -- as a council which is part of our county government, that they
-- they can't have a voting member of the commission on their -- in
the organization. They don't have any funds. What they're doing is
entirely a community effort.
And -- and what I'm suggesting -- and I'd ask the -- the county
attorneys to comment on this issue because they briefed me in some
detail concerning it. And, as a matter of fact, this seems to have
relevance with respect to some other committees that have been --
that some commissioners are working on. So I'll ask the county
commissioner to -- I mean, the county attorney to provide us a brief
overview.
MR. MANALICH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant
county attorney. As Mr. Coyle indicated, we have spoken about this
issue, and it is -- it can be difficult under the Sunshine Law,
especially, first, when we have a county commissioner, not as a
liaison, but as a member of one of these committees. Essentially,
under the Sunshine Law, what happens is that that county
commissioner, then, is covered by the Sunshine Law in any meetings
or discussions with any of those members outside of a Sunshine
notice meeting. So that's one concern.
The other one would be, as Mr. Coyle indicated, is this the type
of committee that, given its nature, its direction and composition and
goals, can effectively function with the procedural requirements of
Sunshine Law? If you determine it cannot, then one remedy to that
Page 176
February 12, 2002
would be simply to repeal the ordinance and dissolve the committee.
Allow those in the community that are involved in these efforts to do
as they will on a private basis without county direction, support, or
funding. So those are some of the options available.
Other options would be to simply only remove the
commissioner from this, but I'm not sure that solves the big picture
here, or to somehow find a way to make them operate, you know,
under the Sunshine Law which doesn't sound like -- from Mr. Coyle's
intimate knowledge of what they're about, to be very feasible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess the way to solve
this is make the commissioner a nonvoting member of the advisory
board?
MR. MANALICH: That's -- it solves one aspect of it. I don't
think, however, it solves all of the issues that Mr. Coyle has
mentioned. I mean, I think to reach that, what we had discussed with
him, with his legal counsel, is that it probably would require repeal of
the ordinance to allow them to function completely apart, separate,
without county direction or funding. There is authority from the
Attorney General, its opinions that indicates that if there is some type
of delegated direction, authority, support, or funding for a group of
people such as this, it could still fall under the Sunshine
requirements. It has to be literally a total separation and parting of
the ways.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I-- I think the fundamental
problem here is that the committee has been set up to carry out what
the county -- the Board of County Commissioners has decided is an
official function of the government, and that, I think, is in error. I
don't think it should be an official function of the government. It
certainly could be a very good community goal, and I would strongly
recommend that those people who wish to proceed with this would
do so. But it's my perception that any time that we ask a committee to
Page 177
February 12, 2002
do something for us or as an extension of our authority, we
immediately place them in -- under the Sunshine.
MR. BELLOWS: That's essentially correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In this case, this committee
essentially has no choice at some point in time with respect to -- to
coming before the county commission to implement this program
with county employees, or to raise funding or to try to get a grant of
some kind, and -- and I believe that if we -- we have this organization
functioning as an arm of the county government, that they have to
operate under the Sunshine Law from the very beginning. And if you
do that, you virtually destroy their ability to function to do the things
they need to do.
MR. MANALICH: So at this point, if-- on a policy basis, I
think if the commission agrees with Mr. Coyle's analysis here, what
we would need is direction to repeal the ordinance, and at that point
the citizens would operate truly as a private organization separate
from the county with no future direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they could come before us,
just as any other community organization does, to -- to -- to petition
us for some kind of action in the future.
MR. MANALICH: They can, provided that that was purely of
their own decision-making process without involving the county and
without county direction as to when, how, or any specifics as to how
that would occur. That's truly them acting as private citizens acting
on their own, separate from the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, would you still be using
county staff?.
MR. MANALICH: I would recommend no, because once you
have that overlap, the authority indicates that then they become
subject to the Sunshine Law potentially.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There should be no reason that
Page 178
February 12, 2002
this council could not use a -- government facilities for their
meetings; right?
MR. MANALICH: Well, on the same basis as anyone else in
the community can reserve a facility.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is it the wish to abolish the
ordinance?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be my
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
if that's a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll second that too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Is
Did you want a second on that
there any other discussion on this?
Questions?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. MANALICH:
I asked them all.
All those in favor indicate by
Opposed?
The ayes have it 4-0.
Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2002-92 APPOINTING CHARLES DOUGLAS,
JR., THOMAS SANSBURY, WILLIAM CONFOY, LUCIUS
LACKORE AND DEXTER GROOSE TO THE LIVINGSTON
Page 179
February 12, 2002
ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Okay. The next item is the appointment of--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. Was Jim Carter going --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Mr. Carter had to go back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Appointment of members to the
Livingston Road beautification MSTU.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
applicants.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning.
Second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
Of course, I don't believe there's anyone to speak on these
issues, is there?
MS. FILSON: No, sir. I have one more speaker left for Item
10-C.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ten what?
MS. FILSON: 10-C.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-C. Okay. Let me know if that
changes.
Okay. We have a motion, and we have a second. All those in
favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 4-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2002-93 REAPPOINTING/APPOINTING
Page 180
February 12, 2002
CHARLES MORGAN ABBOTT, HERBERT ROSSER SAVAGE,
JUS1N MARTIN AND ANTHONY PIRES, JR. TO THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
Moving on. Appointment of members to the Development
Service Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to accept the
recommendations of the committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, on this one, if you take the
recommendation, Mr. Herbert Savage and Mr. Charles Morgan have
both served two terms and Section 7-B of Ordinance 2002-55 will
need to be waived.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to include that in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 4-0.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2002-94 APPOINTING MICHAEL BAUER TO
THE RURAL LANDS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
Page 181
February 12, 2002
Appointment of member to the Rural Lands Oversight
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michael Barr.
motion that we appoint him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
Any
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
And I make a
Second from Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor indicate by saying
Passed 4-0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2002-95 APPOINTING PHONA E. SAUNDERS
AND DIANE TAYLOR TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
Appointment of members to the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to recommend Rona
Saunders and Diane Taylor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
MS. FILSON: And, Mr. Chairman, again, on this committee,
Ms. Taylor has served two terms, so that limitation will have to be
waived.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you'll include that in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And in your second?
Page 182
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Passed 4-0.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2002-96 SUPPORTING FLORIDA HOUSE BILL
1225 - AN ACT PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR DRAG RACING
IN PUBLIC AREAS - ADOPTED
And we did-- already did F. So we go to G, resolution and
support Florida House Bill 1225 providing penalty for drag racing in
public areas, Commissioner Coletta, and that's me. I hope you had a
chance to read this. This was put together by Ralph Azar, Arza.
We'll get it right. Sorry, Ralph.
And this ties in quite well with what we were discussing at our
community meeting District 1 down to Edison Community College.
And this would make it a felony, Class 3 felony to drag race. And we
all know the deaths that come from that, and law enforcement needs a
tool to be able to work with, and I am suggesting that the commission
back this. They have a number of backers already, and they have
asked for our backing also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Mr. Olliff wants to say
something. I'll make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second it.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before the vote -- for the
record, Ramiro Manalich. Just one clarification. As I read the bill,
the initial offense would be a misdemeanor, the first degree; repeat
offense would be a felony, just--
Page 183
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I stand corrected.
MR. MANALICH: Just for clarification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The person that's going to come back
for a second try is going to be the one that's going to pay for the --
pay the price for it. Any questions? Discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, I've got a motion and
a second; correct? Who was the second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I did.
Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4-0.
You did.
That's correct. Thank you,
Item #9H
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE DIRECTED TO WORK WITH
THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ON THE FY03
BUDGET- APPROVED
And then the next item would be -- and why do I take my
glasses off?. Productivity Committee to work with budget office on
the FY '03 budget. Once again, too, this goes back to when I was
part of the Productivity Committee. And God bless you,
Commissioner Henning. You got one of the sharpest committees to
work with in the whole county. Let me find my paperwork on that.
You had a chance to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval. We have a
Page 184
February 12, 2002
second. Is there any discussion? (No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have something in writing?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we do. I thought you-all
received a copy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
We did. We got a handout.
Somehow it slipped by my hands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This was the original purpose of the
productivity committee in the beginning, to be personally involved in
this aspect of government, to be able to make sure what we're getting
back is our dollar's worth in an independent committee. They got
waylaid for a little while with the -- very productively, I might add,
with the Airport Authority. This is to bring it back on track.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is great. I agree. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Okay. All those in favor indicate by
And the ayes have it 4-0.
Item # 10A
RESOLUTION 2002-97 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR-LANE AND SIX-LANE
IMPROVEMENTS TO GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD BETWEEN
PINE RIDGE ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD,
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 65 - ADOPTED
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next two items are items that
are resolutions for condemnations of two of your ongoing road
Page 185
February 12, 2002
projects for property needed for right-of-way. The only reason they
are on your regular agenda is because it bolsters our legal opinion
should we ever actually end up in court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand Mr. Feder needs
to get a couple of things on the record before I make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. And I hate to slow down the progress
you're making, but as Tom pointed out, there's a few things I want to
bring to your attention for the record.
Item 10-A is the resolution authorizing condemnation of right-
of-way and easements required for construction of four-lane and six-
lane improvements, Goodlette-Frank Road between Pine Ridge and
Vanderbilt Beach Road. That's Capital Improvement No. 65, Project
No. 60134.
What I want to tell you is, your two-lane rural cross-section that
you have out there today is being improved to six lanes to just north
of Panther Lane where the school is and then four lanes on up to
Vanderbilt Beach Road. That will be a curb and gutter cross-section
with a raised median. They'll have an 8-foot sidewalk on the west
side with one exception between South Creek or North Creek where
the easement canal doesn't allow that sidewalk at this time to be
placed there. But, then, on the east side, it will have a six-lane
sidewalk (sic) all through the length of the project. There will be
lighting on the west side shining away from the west over towards the
east to acknowledge the sidewalks and the school in the area.
There is a change that I need to bring to your attention in the
agenda package. It's important that this be noted. Parcels 510-A-l;
510-B-1, B-2 and B-3; 510-C and 512 are now reworded to reflect
perpetual nonexclusive slope and utilities easements rather than just
Page 186
February 12, 2002
slope easements. So it's utilities easements as well.
In this process, we've been to you on this previously. The initial
authorization for purchase of right-of-way on Golden-Frank (sic}
road project was given by you on April 10, 2001, under Resolution
No. 2001-114. Appraisals have been prepared, purchase offers made
to most of the properties along, and we're asking you now to look at
condemnation, but we ask you to take into account the considerations
that you had in previous meetings and items as well as the
memorandum that was sent to you in support of the condemnation
provided from me to you on January 31 st of 2002.
In that memorandum we identified what we had done to look at
alternative routes, specifically noting the environmental issues, the
fact that right now, today, while you have some north-south routes,
that there's still the demand from remodeling, and it continues from
your modeling process from the additional lanes -- in this case, the
four-laning and the purchase of right-of-way for eventual six-laning
on Goodlette-Frank Road.
Our opportunities for other arterials besides those exist today --
41, Airport, Livingston and then out to the interstate besides
Goodlette-Frank -- are limited. That's why it's extremely important to
the system. The design process began in October of 1977, along with
corridor evaluations, looked at the appropriate alignment within the
existing general roadway corridor. There were opportunities for
public input provided throughout the design phase, and the findings
were presented and alignment approved by the board February of
2000. Final design is based on that approved alignment.
Additional means were provided at the 60 and 90 percent design
phase, and this has been in your long-range transportation plan. The
2010 long-range transportation plan adopted in '92 as well as the
updates in '96 and '99 to the 2025 long-range transportation plan have
provided for the four-laning with the ultimate six-laning within this
Page 187
February 12, 2002
corridor. And, basically, environmental issues were considered, and
they helped set the specifics of this alignment in many cases as well
Those are the issues, along with what we've presented to you in prior
meetings, public hearings. And based on this criteria that's been
provided to you in the memorandum as well as the executive
summary and your prior activity, we'd ask you to provide your
authorization for this resolution for condemnation, subject to any
public comment that might be ready to come to you today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and we have a
second. Is there any questions or discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it 4-0.
Next item is also yours, I believe, Norm.
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2002-98 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-LANE SECTION OF LIVINGSTON
ROAD BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD AND IMMOKALEE
ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 58 -
ADOPTED
MR. FEDER: Yes, it is. This is, again, a condemnation
resolution. This one is for Livingston Road Phase 3 which is
Livingston Road six-laning between Pine Ridge Road and Immokalee
Page 188
February 12, 2002
Road which is Capital Improvement Element No. 58, Project No.
62071. This is a new alignment. It's a continuation of work that's
underway and a connection specifically to projects up at the Lee
County line, Imperial and Three Oaks. It is a curb and gutter cross-
section as well with sidewalk and as well on street for the
professional cyclists four-lane pass.
The initial authorization for purchase of right-of-way for
Livingston Road Phase 3, basically as I said, Pine Ridge all the way
up to Immokalee was given by the board September 14th, 1999,
under Resolution No. 99-350. Appraisals have been prepared and
purchase offers made to most of the parks along the corridor. We're
now asking for your authorization to proceed with condemnation
where necessary and, again, refer you to a January 31 st, 2001,
memorandum from me that went through some of the issues
considered.
First thing I'll note to you is, basically Parcel 120, not shown on
this list, pretty much provided through a development contribution
agreement with WCI Properties the right-of-way from Vanderbilt
Road up to Immokalee Road. So for Vanderbilt Beach to
Immokalee, the right-of-way is pretty well in hand. So most of this
deals with the acquisition of the property requirements from Pine
Ridge up to Vanderbilt Beach Road. The -- then in the long-range
transportation plan for the county for many years subject to board
meetings and PO meetings and various other public meetings. We
considered alternate routes, specifically, in the county traffic
demands with 1-75 and 41 being the only north-south available to the
county and the high demand for that movement due to environmental
areas and the need to tie into the existing of planned roadway
connections in Lee County. Opportunities were limited for alignment.
Also within Collier County area south of Immokalee Road,
Livingston Road existed as a local road sporadically from Radio
Page 189
February 12, 2002
Road north to Pine Ridge Road. I won't say sporadically anymore
because from Radio to Golden Gate Parkway it exists in a specific
alignment now, but it did exist sporadically and that helped orient at
that time the alignment issues as well as the opportunities were
limited because of environmental concerns for north-south arteries.
Specific alignment of the section was based on the ability to
maintain accessibility to existing land uses, commitments as part of
rezoning petitions to provide right-of-way, obstacles as the FP&L
easement environmental permitting requirements.
Public meetings and input opportunities were provided at
various stages of actual design on Livingston Road. Design contract
for a portion of roadway from Pine Ridge to Vanderbilt Road was
executed on June 9th, 1999, was design contract from Vanderbilt
Beach Road to Immokalee Road executed March 28th of 2000.
Public input meeting was held on August 21st, 2001, at the 60
percent design plans to obtain public comment. Additional means
were representing a major properties adjacent to the proposed
Livingston Road improvements have been held throughout the design
phase. Again, it's been in your long-range transportation plan for
some time. It's been since 2010 long-range transportation plan
adopted in 1992 reiterated in the updates for the 2020 in 1996 and
'99. And in the 2025 updated and adopted in 2001 the need for the six
lanes has been shown and the specific alignment is based on those
extensions.
What I would do at this time, again, is ask you for your
consideration of that memorandum and the other items that are in
there beyond what I have provided to you in word on the record here
today, as well as other issues that we presented to you in the past on
the importance of this alignment and your consideration of
authorizing the resolution for condemnation subject to any public
input that there might be at this time.
Page 190
February 12, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion to approve and a
second. Any discussion or questions? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 4-0.
Seems to be thinning out a little bit down at that end.
make sure we're all still here.
Want to
Item #10C
COMMITTEE SELECTION OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 01-3290 "FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES"-DEPUTY
COUNTY MANAGER MUDD, COUNTY ATTORNEY AND
ANOTHER DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR TO REVIEW THE
PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE AND REPORT THEIR
FINDINGS TO THE BOARD
Okay. Now, we're going to 10-C which was formerly 16-E-4,
and that was pulled by staff. Approve committee election of firms
for contract negotiation.
MS. FILSON: And, Mr. Chairman, this is the one I have the
one lone speaker on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thanks for the warning.
MR. OLLIFF: I can see the speaker is already prepared and at
Page 191
February 12, 2002
the podium and ready to go, so as soon as Carnell gets ready.
MR. CARNELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. Steve Carnell, purchasing general services director. The
recommendation before you is to award RFP 01-3290 which is our
annual engineering services contract. This is an agreement with a
very broad scope of services in it, and it was solicited via the RFP
process with notices sent to 140 firms, 28 of whom responded. We
had 28 submittals on this project -- this agreement. We appointed a
six-member selection committee which reviewed and scored these
proposals individually. Scores were then brought to a selection -- a
public selection committee meeting in which the scoring was based
on the initial RFP, the standards of evaluation that were published in
our RFP. And the committee came back with a recommendation of
18 firms for award of annual term agreements. These are agreements
that are open for a period of two years in which we can utilize any
one of these firms and give them what would be a task order under
that agreement to provide various types of engineering services.
The recommendation was originally submitted to you for the
January 8th agenda; however, prior to that board date, we did receive
a formal protest of the award recommendation from a joint venture of
AEC National and Wilkison & Associates. They were one of the ten
proposers that were not recommended for selection. The protest was
received by my office. In reviewing the protest, I met twice with
representatives from the joint venture and also talked to several of the
selection committee members individually with regard to the
deliberations, and I reviewed the tapes from the selection committee
meetings.
Basically there are three issues raised in the protest. A copy of
the protest and the protest decision are included in your agenda
package and in the protest decision the protest issues are summarized
for you. There were three of them. There is one in particular that
Page 192
February 12, 2002
seems to be the center point issue with regard to the overall process
of the committee.
You have a handout in front of you that I just provided to you
that's intended to provide, just very briefly, a summary of the -- what
I believe to be the core issue here with regard to the process.
A couple of things I'd like to say briefly before we go over this
is just that I think it needs to be stated for the record that both
Wilkison Associates and AEC National have done work with Collier
County in the past as individual firms, and they have also conducted
business as a -- as this particular joint venture before. And in the last
three years we have transacted over $530,000 worth of business, at
least orders placed with Wilkison & Associates, and almost
identically that same number with AEC National.
And, coincidentally, we have about $525,000 worth of work
with them over the last three years. And then the joint venture has
received $274,000 worth of orders in the last three years.
I make that point just to make it clear that these firms, both
individually and as a joint venture, are officially in good standing
with our agency and have provided service to us in an acceptable
way. And with that, what I wanted to do was to refer you to the
handout and point you to what I believe to be the core issue here with
this protest.
In the RFP, we set forth our evaluation and selection procedure.
It's an eight -- eight-paragraph description and it covers the general
flow of how we're going to evaluate the proposals. That evaluation,
we need to remember, is part of a process that this board established
officially three years ago where we operate in the Sunshine. Even
though there are no elected officials in the room typically and no
elected officials serving on the committees, we do -- nonetheless, we
conduct all of our meetings in the Sunshine. Anybody can come and
watch and listen and observe, and we operate in a very diverse
Page 193
February 12, 2002
manner; meaning, we do not have standing selection committees with
the same handful of people each and every time. We try to bring in a
-- diverse members of staff from different perspectives related in
some way to the project or contract being awarded.
We use scoring and voting methods to help assess the firms, but
ultimately this is a jury-like process. It is -- a decision is made by
consensus of the selection committee, and that's done for a couple of
reasons. Number one, it's to -- it's done to afford all members of the
committee the opportunity to gain the full benefit of each other's
feedback in the discussion. And also it's to come away from that
meeting with a united decision so that we can move forward as a
group and so that we don't leave ourselves second-guessing about
how we make a selection. We basically get our group to hang in
there until they can agree on a selection strategy and do that so that
they can work forward from there together.
Now with that said, in this particular instance, if you look at the
handout, I inserted for you language from Section 6 of the evaluation
selection procedure and I'll just -- if I can, for the benefit of the
public, let me read this to you. It says (as read): "The committee will
compile individual rankings for each proposal to determine any of the
committee recommendations. The final recommendation will be
decided based on review of scores and the consensus of the
committee." And our procedures underscore this and elaborate even
more specifically on this notion of selection by consensus.
Now, in my discussions -- in reading the protest from the
protesting firm and also talking to them -- and I went over this with
them in particular in the first conversation I had with them where I
walked through this very specifically, point-blankly with them, if you
look at that left-hand column, that is my understanding of how they
interpret or read Section 6. And what they're saying there, as I
understood it from what they said to me, was that each committee --
Page 194
February 12, 2002
in this case, we had 28 firms, keep in mind, 28 proposals to work our
way through, and they interpret that Section 6 to say, from what they
told me, that each committee member needs to score each proposal
and establish a ranking of 1 to 28. And if you'll note in the right-
hand column, this is what the selection committee actually did.
That's, in fact, what they did initially.
Each individual scored the proposals, brought them to the
selection committee meeting tentatively scored ready for discussion.
Then discussion took place. They would say discussion would need
to take place. I would tell you that that's what the selection
committee, in fact, did. They discussed the proposals. They
discussed their initial impressions and understandings individually of
what they saw in reading the proposals.
Now, here's where the point of departure occurs. It's the
protestor's contention, as I understand it, that at this point in time,
they would expect the committee to tally all of the rankings of each
member and to then discuss that outcome, if you will. We add -- you
add all the rankings together, you come up with this mathematical
result, if you will, that shows Firm A, Number 1; Firm 2, Number 2;
Firm C, third, and so on. And I will tell you that many of our
committees function that way. That's actually what they will do at
this point in the process.
In this particular instance, there were 28 proposals, and the
committee opted instead after discussing their -- sharing their
comments about -- each of the committee members sharing their
comments about their scores and their rankings, rather than doing a
formal compilation of scores, they instead attempted to prioritize the
group of firms into three groups; yes, no, and maybe. At this point,
who would you be inclined to go with; who would you give a yes to;
who would you say no; and who would you say maybe? You're -- is
someone on the fence, if you will, and they broke those 28 firms into
Page 195
February 12, 2002
three groups.
Now, if you look at the balance of the left-hand column, if we've
added the rankings, then the next thing that needs to be done is
determine how many firms for award because that's an open-ended
question here. We, of course, had no idea exactly how many firms'
proposals we would receive. We don't know that until we know it.
We don't know ahead of time how many we're going to get, and at
this point the determination needs to be made about how many of that
group do you want to make awards to.
And then if I, again, understand what the protestor told me, their
interpretation of paragraph 6 is that the committee would rank the
firms 1 to 28, they would review that ranking, they'd finalize the
ranking as a group, and then they'd make -- decide, how many firms
do we want to distribute work to, and they'd make that cut point. So
if it's going to be -- in this case, it was eight -- ended up being 18,
then what they're advocating is that you look at your 1 to 28 list and
you draw a line between 18 and 19. You say, everybody above the
line is recommended for award; everybody below is not.
Again, what the committee actually did was, they broke it into
three groups; "yes," "no," "maybe." They discussed in some depth
what they came up with at that point, and they started looking at how
many firms got "yes's," how many firms got "maybe's," and how
many firms got "no's." And what they came up with was there were
five firms that were consensus -- unanimous "yes's." All six
committee members said go with these five for sure.
Then there seven firms that got five out of six votes. And so the
committee immediately said, "Let's go with those 12. Put them in as
'yes' for the moment for award." Then they looked -- had
considerable more discussion at that point. They were trying to
grapple with the question of how many firms to select and the --
ultimately decided to also include the firms that received four "yes"
Page 196
February 12, 2002
votes. On a six-member committee, that would be a majority of the
committee.
That's basically the ultimate logic of the committee, as I
understood it, was they basically went with all the firms that had a
majority "yes" vote in that final step. That ended up being 18 out of
28 firms.
Now, on its face, that's a very inclusive recommendation. We're
recommending almost two-thirds of the competitors to get an award
here. This was an extremely competitive process when you look at
the individual scores on their face. Bear with me a second, a little bit
of math. Twenty-eight firms, six people ranking. Twenty-eight
times six. That's one hundred sixty-eight slots, if you can think, that
have to be filled when you rank. Ninety-eight of them-- I counted
ninety-eight ties in the raw score out of one hundred sixty-eight
firms. I would suggest to you when you have that kind of a situation,
that the scoring loses a little bit of statistical significance because
people are bunched so closely together. And I think the committee
attempted -- recognizing that, attempted to try to group the firms and
break them into groups and then discuss the groups and make a
selection from there.
So that's my understanding in general -- basically, in essence, of
how the committee did what it did. And at this point, I've reviewed
this. I looked back at the language in Section 6. I discussed this with
the county attorney, and I discussed it with various staff members.
And while I will acknowledge and did acknowledge to the protestor
that the left-hand column here is a frequent method that we use in our
selections, I can also point to instances where we've done the
approach in the right-hand column as well off of the same language.
So at this point, I'm recommending that we stick
with the selection committee's findings, that we go with 18 firms,
recognizing, again, this is a very inclusive list, and that we proceed
Page 197
February 12, 2002
from there. I think at this point, Mr. Chairman, you need to hear
from your protestor.
MR. NUNNER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Jeff Nunner, and I am representing the AEC
Wilkison Joint Venture. Thank you for the opportunity to address
you this afternoon.
Before I get into my prepared statement, I would like to point
out that I will come back to this handout that Mr. Carnell just passed
out. He had gave me the same handout about 30 minutes ago, and I
had mentioned to him that it is not -- it is not a factual handout, but I
would like to address that at the end of my statement.
I am here to request that AEC Wilkison Joint Venture be added
to the selected list of engineering firms based on our ranking. I am
also here to tell you that in this case the RFP process was changed
midstream and was not communicated to the participants. This
creates a lack of confidence in the system as a whole. As the elected
officials responsible for this county, you should know this.
The AEC Wilkison Joint Venture has provided engineering
services to Collier County for the last three years under the fixed-
term engineering services agreement. Each of our firms are Naples-
based and our staffs have provided competent engineering services to
Collier County for the last 18 years. We have worked well with your
staff over the last three years and provided competent engineering
services. Your staff has never notified us that they were not satisfied
with our work product.
The contract we were working under will soon expire, and we
responded to RFP 01-3290 in order to participate in the fixed-term
engineering services agreement for the next three years. We
followed the RFP instructions, and our proposal was submitted-- was
considered by the committee. There were 28 proposals submitted
and staff recommended 18 to be awarded a contract. Our proposal
Page 198
February 12, 2002
was graded by the selection -- selection committee pursuant to RFP
guidelines. It was graded by the selection committee.
Our tabulation of grades indicating our proposal was ranked 14
out of the 28 RFPs considered, and that's where we differ from Mr.
Carnell's handout and that each committee member never did rank
the firms. Only one committee member out of the six actually did the
ranking. Our joint venture, even though ranked 14th, was not
selected on the list of 12 because of two reasons. We believe, and
our attorney's opinion confirms, that each of these reasons is in
violation of the RFP process.
Reason No. 1, the selection committee did not award the
contract based on the results of the committee member grading
sheets. In fact, the committee did not tabulate grading sheets they
brought to the meeting. If they had, we would have been part of the
selected list as our scores indicated a ranking of 14.
We recently learned that the committee responsible for selecting
fixed-term surveying firms used the grading sheets to make final
selections. We do not understand why this was not done in the fixed-
term engineering selection. Mr. Carnell, I'm sure, will tell you that it
was within the purchasing department's purview to toss out and not
tabulate the individual grades, but our attorney's opinion says it is
not. And even if it is within their purview, it does not make it right.
It brings a subjective element to the process that we believe this
board would object to.
The rankings based upon the individual grading sheets indicate 5
of 18 firms had higher grades -- had lower grades than ours.
Specifically, firms ranked 15th, 3 tied for 16th, and the 20th ranked
firm were chosen over our firm which was ranked 14th.
Reason No. 2, the committee chose to select firms based on a
voting system of "yes," "no," or "maybe." In order to be included on
the list, four "yes" votes were required from four of the six committee
Page 199
February 12, 2002
members. Our firm received three "yes" votes, two "no" votes, and
one "maybe." One of the committee members voted "no" solely
because we were a joint-venture proposal. This committee member
had given us a ranking of 11 out of 28 firms upon review of the
grading sheets. The other firm -- the other proposal that gave us a
"no" vote gave us a "no" vote because we did not provide
transportation planning services. Joint-venture firms were not
precluded from participating in this RFP -- upon review of the RFP
instructions, but we were not selected because we were a joint
venture.
Again, the process as described in the RFP is objective, but
when the committee changed the rules midstream, it became a
subjective process. How else can you explain a "no" vote from a
selection committee member who ranked our firm 1 lth. If this
committee member was unsatisfied with our work product or joint-
venture proposal, he had an opportunity to address it on his grading
sheet. He did not. He ranked us 1 lth.
Now, after the meeting and our protest, Steve Carnell spoke to
this committee member and reported to us that this committee
member stated that he also voted "no" because in his experience in
dealing with our firm, that deliverables were late and invoices were
not right. He had the opportunity, again, to lower our grade if he had
a concern before the meeting. There is also no document in our files
that identified a problem with our service to this committee member
from past projects. He ranked us 1 lth and gave us a "no" vote.
I am providing this information, including our tabulated grading
sheet, rankings, and attorney's opinion previously that have been
provided to Mr. Carnell so that it may become part of the record.
In conclusion, I request the board consider adding the AEC
Wilkison Joint Venture to the list of selected firms. Other firms do
not have to be removed from the list in order for the board to do this.
Page 200
February 12, 2002
AEC Wilkison Joint Venture has and will continue to provide Collier
County with the excellent engineering and architectural services we
have in the past, present, and future projects. As we told Mr. Camell,
changing the process midstream violated the RFP and our confidence
in the system. That is why we are here today, and I trust this board
will rectify the situation. Thank you and your staff for your
consideration.
And I would like to point out the two problems with the handout
that Mr. Carnell passed out. On his side of the column, what the
selection committee actually did-- Number 1, he states that each
committee member scores each proposal and ranks each from 1 to 28.
That did not happen. One out of the six committee members did that.
He states on No. 2, that the committee discusses each proposal. That
did not happen upon review of the tapes. Some proposals were
discussed; others were not discussed during the process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? I got a comment.. I did
sit in on two of the selection committee meetings. I didn't make that
one. And I was quite impressed. I had some serious doubts before
about how this was all arrived at. Clearly defined before they started.
There was a couple of new people that seemed to be on each one of
the boards that were going through this process. It seemed to have a
pattern and come up with a definite solution. I didn't sit on this
particular board, so I can't pass judgment on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How-- how can we solve this
without actually examining the records and talking with the selection
committee? You know, I couldn't possibly reach a decision on this at
this point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got a couple of choices. You
can accept this as it is or you can send it back for a total review and
redo it over again; is that correct, Mr. Olliff?.
MR. CARNELL: Let me give you a couple options here you
Page 201
February 12, 2002
could consider. One would be that we could -- you could add
Wilkison to the list, make it 19, giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Another option would be to reconvene the selection committee and
have them discuss the issues that Wilkison has brought in the protest
and have it remanded back to the board after discussion between the
full committee and Wilkison.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd be very leery about the first
option. If we stepped in at this point in time and -- and requested
somebody be put on -- and the firm from what I've known has been
reputable and provided good service, but then again too, I'm not
asked to make that judgment. I'm not out in the field.
MR. NUNNER: If I could -- could I make a statement? Our
firm was ranked 14th--
MR. CARNELL: Let me address that point.
MR. NUNNER: -- in the rankings. So I don't think --
MR. CARNELL: That's--
MR. NUNNER: If I could finish my statement. So I don't think
it's outside the board's jurisdiction to add a 14th ranked firm to a list
that includes 18 firms.
MR. CARNELL: Well, let me address that, because I've already
given Mr. Nunner the answer and he's not conveying this to you.
There is ample precedent and I can show you -- I can walk you
through the files in other selections. Commissioner Coletta, the one
you attended with the Land Development Code falls under what I'm
about to say where the rankings of the individual committee members
varied from the final selection. This is a decision based on the sum
of the parts. Not picking apart the individuals and going after them.
It's about the sum, the consensus, the will of the collective group.
That happens frequently where the order initially when the
individuals who haven't had the benefit of talking to one another
score it one way coming in tentatively and then make changes as they
Page 202
February 12, 2002
talk to one another, as they gain more information. So our whole
process is predicated on that approach. So this "We were 14th. We
were 14th" statement really loses some relevance when you put it in
the context of the bigger process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In our -- in our packet it's -- it's
stating that two of the members cast a negative vote because one
statement was that it was a joint venture, and the response was, Well,
that wasn't part of the RFP process, that it needed to be one -- a one-
stop shop. The other one stated that -- you know, that they didn't
provide transportation engineering service, and that wasn't a part of
the RFP according to the statement; is that true?
MR. CARNELL: It was not a specific criteria, although the
experience of the firms was a factor in consideration, their
qualifications, and the committee members did give consideration to
the fact that a good deal of the work is going to be transportation-
oriented. The utilities division has several other contracts under--
under the banner of engineering. Transportation has a few additional
too, but I believe that particular committee member was feeling as
though a great deal of the work would be transportation-oriented.
The selection committee had a majority transportation membership
on it, and that was a strategic decision made by the committee
because of the anticipated use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it a part of the RFP to
have transportation?
MR. CARNELL: Yes. It was part of the services to be
provided, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was in the --
MR. CARNELL: Well, let me clarify that. Yes, it was under
the umbrella of services to be provided. It was not specifically stated
in the RFP that a majority of work would be transportation, if that's
Page 203
February 12, 2002
what you're asking me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no. That isn't what I'm
asking. Is some of the requirements or requirements to have
transportation planning services, was that in the RFP? Did you have
to have that planning--
MR. CARNELL: No, not specifically.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. NUNNER: Commissioner Henning, I could read that
section from the RFP. It's only a couple sentences.
COMMISSIONER HENNING' He just answered it. It wasn't
part of the RFP.
MR. NUNNER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- and that's what I think
what we're doing here, is setting ourselves up to fail, is it wasn't in
the RFP. You had two committee members on there that voted
negatively because they didn't provide certain services and it wasn't a
joint venture. What -- it wasn't a part of the RFP, I don't -- I think we
can resolve this real easy just by adding AC-whatever and Wilkison
to the -- part of the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I really don't agree, 'cause then every
time this comes up for another ranking down the road, we're going to
have everyone and his brother coming in to protest the ranking. This
is big dollars we're talking about. I might be more agreeable to
reconvene this committee again, possibly with different members to it
and go back to the original way of ranking where they did it by a
number rather than a "yes," "no," or "maybe." If there's some
question in the process, let the process repeat itself with some
different faces. That would be my suggestion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the problem there is if you
go back through the process, you're looking to find that some of the
Page 204
February 12, 2002
people who were placed on the list now should not be placed on the
list, so we'd be taking people off, and that creates a very serious
problem. I think the issue should deal only with the company before
us right now. And I feel uncomfortable trying to make a decision
without knowing all the elements in the RFP, without having
reviewed all the responses to the RFP. It would seem to me that it
would-- might be a good compromise between the two proposals that
have been discussed is if we sent this back to the evaluation board
specifically to take a look at this RFP or this proposal, this response,
in the context of what the RFP actually requested. And if-- if it
didn't request or if it didn't exclude a joint venture and if it didn't
specifically state that the majority of the work would be
transportation, you would have to take that into consideration, that--
as you wouldn't be able to penalize them because they were a joint
venture. So -- so it seems to me that that is the best solution to this
process.
MR. CARNELL: If I could add -- if I could add one comment
on the joint venture, and this was stated in the protest decision. Mr.
Nunner had already referred to the fact that he personally didn't
receive any negative feedback regarding the joint venture, but the
committee member involved didn't just dismiss all joint ventures,
period. At least when I interviewed him, he had a specific negative
experience with this joint venture last year on the late Kelly Project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the reason it goes through the
process.
MR. CARNELL: Yes. And he was -- now, I will tell you, I
want to characterize this again. You've got to understand it fully. It
worked itself out in that the issues eventually got addressed, the
contract work got done, and it did not rise to the level of a formal
complaint that was filed with the firm. But there were two issues
with -- there was an issue with performance initially with getting
Page 205
February 12, 2002
deliverables on time. And there was a second issue about
administration of invoices and confusion because of the joint venture.
Was the bill coming from one firm or both collectively? Now, Mr.
Nunner told me he wasn't aware of this and neither were other
principals in either company and from what I can verify, there was no
formal communication to the leadership of either entity.
MR. NUNNER: If I could respond to those statements. The
first statement, Mr. Carnell said that this individual did not blanket
bid -- vote "no" for joint ventures when he -- in fact, he did. There
was another joint-venture firm on the list, and he voted "no" to that
joint-venture firm also. So that's an incorrect statement.
The second issue I'd like to raise is, this individual used-- this
individual graded the proposals in his office the first time he
reviewed them. The second time he reviewed and discussed these
proposals was during the committee meeting when nothing was
raised about unsatisfactory work or invoicing, nothing.
The third time he got a chance to enter information into this
process when Mr. Carnell interviewed him in private and then this
came up about unsatisfactory work or deliverables and problems with
invoicing which hurts us. It doesn't hurt the county.
So I see -- I see that individual had three times, and every time
he goes back to the scoring sheets it changes. You have to keep in
mind, he gave our firm a "no" vote because we were a joint venture.
When he had us graded, he had us ranked 1 1 th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a discussion?
Maybe we can come up with a hybrid solution to this. I can
understand Mr. Coyle's concern over the ones that were already
approved. To remove them from the ranking wouldn't be fair, and
that is absolutely correct. Possibly we could reconvene this selection
committee to start not quite from scratch; I mean, guarantee the
people that have already been approved, put everybody's name back
Page 206
February 12, 2002
in the hopper again with a new selection committee, and if this firm
here and the other firm makes the ranking, include them in the list.
And if they don't make it with a new firm and placed at the end of the
list, then at that point in time stay with your original decision. That's
the only way I can think of that would be halfway fair. Does that
make sense?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It sure is better than us trying to
make that decision.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, we can't.
MR. CARNELL: So you're not suggesting that we reject the
proposals. We take the proposals as they are on the table, and you're
saying evaluate the ten firms that were not recommended or just the
one that's in question right now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, to evaluate the one firm all by
itself is an impossibility. You have to have the other firms to be able
to use for a comparison to be able to find out how it would rank. I
would do the ranking including -- well, if there was ten other firms,
I'd put them all back in, but I would guarantee the firms that are
already approved, the 16 here that they got a ranking.
MR. CARNELL: So there's no point in reevaluating them? We
leave them in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, yes. Reevaluating to the point
of comparison to find out which level you're going to come at with
these two companies that are having a problem. You got to be able to
fit them into some sort of peg system. They come out at the far end
again. At that point in time, the second committee has more or less
come up with the same conclusions that the first committee did. That
would be the end of it. I agree this is extreme, but I don't know how
else to approach this. How often does this happen?
MR. CARNELL: Not frequently.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank God.
Page 207
February 12, 2002
MR. NUNNER: And I'd just like to state that--
MR. MUDD: I'd like to interject for just a second. Jim Mudd,
the deputy county manager, for a second.
Sir: your -- your-- there's a couple things that disturb me. Okay.
One, if I was a firm on the outside that was in the top 18 and
somebody else that's getting themselves on a list and working for
potential work, so you get yourself into a potential suit where
somebody's going to talk -- could bring suit against the county for
work that -- that they lost because of whatever, because of an
addition or whatever to that list.
Another thing that disturbs me is, these contracts, 500,000 each
per year, is that what they're running? MR. CARNELL: Yes.
MR. MUDD: So you basically got 18 firms out there and you
just built an expectation of $9 million worth of work. There are some
things that bother me in that process because they talk about, how
many do you select? In -- in other forms and other lines of work that
I had, I had an idea of how much work we had out there for a year
before you went out for an ID -- I call these IDIQs, indefinite-
delivery-indefinite-quantity-type contracts, and you knew what you
had on the plate so you didn't end up with hollow contracts.
Okay. The worst thing you can do for a firm, any firm, is to
have them go through a submission process. It costs money for that
firm to put in a bid. Okay. Depending on the complexity of the job, it
could cost a firm -- and I'm not too sure this was that complex -- but
for a complex job, it could cost a firm almost $100,000 to put in a bid
document. So it's -- it's not small potatoes to that firm when they lose
a bid. In this particular case, probably wasn't that costly for them, but
you have to understand, when they put in, it's serious business for
them. So if they put that kind of money on an outlay and then all of a
sudden the expectation that they're going to get work and it doesn't
Page 208
February 12, 2002
happen, that's the worst thing that can happen, especially when you're
with a small company that only has four to five engineers on staff or
three engineers, two architects, whatever you want to call it, and all
of a sudden their expectation is they're going to get some kind of
payroll because they're going to do work for the county or some other
-- some other organization and that work doesn't come in and they've
got a payroll problem. So you got to think about that as you go
through it.
May I -- may I suggest that in this particular case, you might --
you might want to appoint me, a county attorney, and commissioner
to sit -- okay. The county attorney, myself, and maybe another
administrator to take a look at this process, take a look at everything
that went through it and -- and get another set of eyes on it to see if--
if everything was -- was done correctly in that process and then come
back to you and report to you upon what our findings are and we'll
give you a recommendation.
MR. NUNNER: If I could just make -- if I could just make a
correction. It is not $500,000 per year. It's $500,000 for a three-year
term.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for the correction. I still
make that motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In your recommendation, what
are we going to solve? Are you going to come back to us and say,
Yeah, there was a flaw in the process? So what are we going to do
then? Or, no, there wasn't a flaw in the process. Is that a final
decision?
MR. MUDD: Sir, if we come back to you and say there was a
flaw in the process, then I would say to you, you probably need to
reconvene a different selection committee. Okay. And that's for us --
us to find out if that was an issue or not. If-- if it was unfair for one,
it might have been unfair for all. We need to take a look at that and
Page 209
February 12, 2002
make sure it was done correctly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I personally have all the
confidence in the world in my senior staff members. I think that is
about the best answer I've heard so far.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I -- you know, why
don't we just cut to the chase and reconvene the selection committee
and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I actually had my motion on the
floor. If it fails, we'll go to yours.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Any other discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three ayes have it. Commissioner
Henning is the dissenting vote. Thank you very much. MR. NUNNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where are we now? We already
covered 12-A, didn't we? Which is 16 -- we didn't -- we didn't take a
vote on that?
MS. FILSON: Communications.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: David, I think you're up now. This is
that one there we pulled off the consent agenda, 16-L-1.
MR. OLLIFF: We actually continued that, Mr. Chairman, to the
Page 210
February 12, 2002
meeting of the 26th. We continued that one to the meeting of the
26th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #15A
DISCUSSION REGARDING BUDGET BY COUNTY MANAGER
OLLIFF
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then we're down to
communications.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I've got two items under
communications, and I won't keep you long, but I wanted to begin by
doing a little follow-up with you. I think you recall post-September
11 th we brought back to you a management recommendation for a
budget reduction and management plan, as what I recall we named it.
And I didn't want to just give you that report and make those
recommendations to you and not at least follow up and let you know
what has been done since.
If you'll recall, the major portion of that program included a -- a
3 percent across-the-board operating fund reduction in which case I
indicated that we would be moving those funds into the appropriate
reserve accounts so that the operating departments would not have
access to those funds without having specific board approval to get
back to those funds. And I can tell you that as of this date that we
have actually done the budget amendments to move right at $14
million from the operating budgets back into reserve funds.
In addition to that, we eliminated the design cost of one of the
major capital construction projects so there was about another $2.9
million that was removed out of this current year budget as well. In
Page 211
February 12, 2002
addition, I think that because of some recent debt service
restructuring that resulted from the sales tax bond issue that you
recently approved, the good news for next year's budget is that
roughly $3.4 million in what would be debt service out of next year's
budget will no longer be required. So in addition to putting ourselves
in a better position this year, I think you have, through your actions,
put this county in a much better position financially heading into the
budget process for next year as well, and through some of those
financing issues, you've also already started making some progress
towards reducing some of the expense out of our equation for the
fiscal year '03 budget. And I just wanted to follow up with you and
tell you about those things.
Item # 15B
DISCUSSION REGARDING NOISE VIOLATIONS BY CODE
ENFORCEMENT
The second item that we had for communication -- and I asked
Mr. Schmitt if he would stick around and give you a little update. As
most of you are dealing with noise ordinance-related complaints, I
thought a little follow-up and update from Mr. Schmitt about what
we're doing there might be helpful.
MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon. For the record, Joe Schmitt,
community development and environmental services administrator.
This is in response to numerous complaints and subsequently,
frankly, your desire to implement a noise response of systems for
citizens' complaints to noise during off hours.
Our code enforcement department in conjunction with the
county sheriff's office established a quick-reaction noise-response
program. The two departments agreed that it would be beneficial to
Page 212
February 12, 2002
have a code enforcement noise specialist investigator on duty rather
than on call to eliminate extensive -- extensive time delays in
responding to noise complaints. The program will be initiated on a
30-day trial period as we determine the impact, cost effectiveness,
and responsiveness of the program. As of this past Friday, February
8th and for the next three weekends, the code enforcement noise
specialist would be placed on duty on an on-duty status or on-duty
schedule during the hours of 10 p.m. To 2 a.m. On Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday nights.
Now, the protocol for the trial program will consist -- will be as
follows: When a call comes into the sheriffs office or the call comes
into the sheriffs dispatch, the caller must provide their name, address,
and phone number. If any information is refused, the caller will be
advised that the investigator will not respond to take a noise reading.
If, in fact, or after the information is provided, the dispatcher radios
or telephones the enforcement investigator as well as a deputy to
respond to the complaint. Upon arrival to the complaint --
complainant's property, the investigator will set up the equipment and
conduct the readings. If a violation is registered, the investigator
issues a notice of violation to the responsible party with a reasonable
time to abate, and we're recommending that be no more than 15
minutes. In fact, 15 minutes is quite a long time to abate.
If the noise violation is abated and reoccurs or if the -- or if the
complaint or the actual person refuses to abate, a citation will be
issued to the responsible party. If there's no violation, we will advise
the complainant that the sound level does not violate the county code
ordinance.
I guess with that, both the code enforcement staff and the
sheriffs office are hopeful that once the community becomes aware
of the attention that we are giving to this program, these nuisance --
the nuisances and the violations will be reduced. But we started this
Page 213
February 12, 2002
past weekend, and I'll just turn it over to Michelle Arnold so she can
give you the rundown of the results of this past weekend. Michelle.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. We were out
this weekend. We got a total of six calls which was -- wasn't that
many, but readings were taken at three of the locations. One of the
locations we didn't take a reading because the caller didn't respond to
our confirmation phone call. And the reason why we do that, I just
want to clarify, we just want to make sure the person calling is really
affected by the nuisance. We did do a patrol of the area for that
particular call and didn't notice anything that would have been
excessive noise or in violation. We did find two violations, and the
others were no violations.
There is some additional coordination that's needed with the
sheriff's office, and we're working towards that. But we feel that, you
know, with these -- these improvements, that the program's going to
be a success. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we publicize this number?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, we -- we did call someone from the
media and we -- we have the ability to put out a public service
announcement on our channel, and we'll, you know, work with the
public information office as well as Tina Osceola with the sheriff's
office who is responsible for their public information to try to get the
word out. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Michelle.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all we had, Mr. Chairman.
Item # 15C
DISCUSSION REGARDING LAWSUIT FILED BY
VANDERBILT BEACH SHORES, VANDERBILT CLUB, ETC.
Page 214
February 12, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it?
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, briefly. Thank you. I wanted to update
you and, to that extent, the public in regard to the recent lawsuit filed
against Collier County and indicate to you in order that's issued from
the Court in that regard. The fact is that Collier County had a suit
filed against it in court by the following named plaintiffs. I will read
them: The Vanderbilt Shores Condominium Association, Inc.;
Vanderbilt Club Condominium Association, Inc.; the Vanderbilt
Landings Condominium Association, Inc.; the Vanderbilt Gulf Side
Condominium Association, Inc.; the Monte Carlo Condominium
Association, Inc.; the Mansions Condominium Association, Inc.; the
Gulf Cove Condominium Association, Inc.; and the Vanderbilt Beach
and Bay Association, Inc. -- Association, Homeowners Association, I
believe. And they filed a lawsuit against Collier County in late
November, early December, but never served the Board of County
Commissioners, there being, therefore, no duty to respond to the
complaint.
I wanted to clarify for this record and for the public that
although there have been allegations in the paper and through e-mail
you've received that the county attorney office stalled in responding
to the complaint, pursuant to the rules of court, we -- the client, Board
of County Commissioners, on behalf of the county had never been
served. Nonetheless, on January 23rd, just a few days ago an
amended -- an amended petition for certiorari and amended
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed with the
Court and was hand-delivered to my office on January 23rd.
So from that filing we are, in fact, in a position to respond. We
have -- we have been served and are looking to respond, and from
that standpoint I thank you for the assistance on Item 16-L-4 where
you approved outside counsel to be involved in this lawsuit because
Page 215
February 12, 2002
of the fact that the county attorney office or some of its members may
be called as witnesses.
This last Friday afternoon we received an order-- two orders, in
fact, from the Court in which this case was filed. They were signed
February 7th -- apparently February 2nd-- filed on the 7th, and we
received it on Friday the 8th. One is an order directing petitioners,
slash, plaintiffs -- that is, the associations I previously mentioned,
ordering them to supplement the record and submit a petition that
complies with the rules of appellate procedure. And I won't read the
whole order, but I will note that in the final language of the order it
states (as read): "Failure to comply with this Court's order and the
rules of appellate procedure may result in sanctions up to and
including dismissal."
And then it has a cite to the appellate rules. I will continue (as
read): "Alternatively," this order says, "the Court may conclude that
the petitioners have failed to demonstrate a preliminary basis for
relief."
In the other order from the Court in which this lawsuit was filed
-- this is the order to show cause why the complaint should not be
severed from the petition from Writ of Certiorari. The Court notes
that the petition of Writ of Certiorari is filed pursuant to the Florida
Rules of Appellate Procedure stating (as read): "Whereas, the
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief falls under the Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure."
The order states further, "The operation of the appellate rules
and civil rules differs significantly, and the differences between the
rules makes it difficult, if not impossible, to apply the appellate rules
and civil rules to different claims within the same action.
"Accordingly, it's ordered and adjudged that the petitioners,
slash, plaintiffs shall show good cause within ten days why the Court
should not dismiss the amended complaint for declaratory and
Page 216
February 12, 2002
injunctive relief without prejudice to the petitioners, slash, plaintiffs
filing a separate civil action for those counts; and, B, why the
amended petition for certiorari under Florida Rule -- Appellate Rule
(sic) Rule 9.100 should not continue in the instant case --" and it lists
the case number.
And that, again, was done and ordered in the chambers of the
circuit court judge the 2nd day of February.
I mention these to you both for the fact that you haven't heard
them from anywhere else or anything else, but also the fact is, then,
that by order of the Court, the petitioners-plaintiffs, through their
attorney, have been ordered to respond to this -- to the complaint, and
we, the county, have no duty -- in fact, shall not be responding until
the issues between the judge and the plaintiffs are cleared up. I just
wanted to let you know that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Item #15D
COUNTY MANAGER TO LOOK INTO NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
REGARDING BONUSES ON HOME OWNERSHIP
Commissioners' comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing, Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, one thing. Reading the
paper this morning, quite disturbing, one of the articles, that Dwight
Brock is refusing to pay one of our employees a bonus, which was
quite disturbing to me. It kind of-- only getting one side of the story,
and it's a story coming out of the paper. So I don't know how true it
is, that an employee is actually getting paid a bonus to do their job.
Page 217
February 12, 2002
So I would like to see some kind of response and -- to that after the
county manager looks into that. I'm sure it's not my duty or
obligation to direct the county manager to cease and desist of this, but
I think that we do need to have resolution to it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're looking for a response
directly back to us or to the paper?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. To me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To us.
MR. OLLIFF: I'll provide a response to the board. I will tell
you that it was set up as a program. It was considered a lot more like
piecework, if you will, as opposed to a bonus where those people
were paid to go out and try and actually secure loans, and the rate of
pay per hour that their jobs were originally set up on was lower than a
typical job in order to be able to accommodate the piecemeal-type
offset for any home loans that they were able to secure. And it was
an incentive-type program that we developed to try and push, frankly,
affordable housing and people to get into homeownership as opposed
to rental situations. But we're working with the Clerk of Courts on
that, and if-- if we need to come back and get board approval for the
program, because I think it's a good one, we will, but until then we'll
go back to the straight-up hourly rate until we can get it resolved
between our agency and the clerk's.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Okay. That's the only thing I
have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have nothing either. So with that,
declare us adjourned.
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Carter out) that the following
Page 218
February 12, 2002
items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or
adopted: *****
Item #16Al
FINAL PLAT OF "ENDRES SUBDIVISION"
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2002-87-A, RE PETITION ST-2001-SR-1226,
GEORGE L. VARNADOE, ESQ., OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP,
VARNADOE AND ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING
BARRON COLLIER COMPANIES, REQUESTING A SPECIAL
TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN THE A-MHO-
ACSC/ST DISTRICT FOR A "SPORTING AND RECREATIONAL
CAMP" LOCATED APPROXIMATELY THREE QUARTERS OF
A MILE WEST OF S.R. 29 AND APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE
SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD (CR 858) IN SECTIONS 19 AND
30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. (COMPANION TO CU-2001-AR-1225)
Item #16A3
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.804 "JIM
WEEKS COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION, DESOTO
BOULEVARD, U67 TR143", LOCATED IN SECTION 21,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST- WITH
STIPULATIONS (THIS PETITION IS A COMPANION ITEM TO
CONDITIONAL USE 2001-AR-1620 BEING CONSIDERED
TODAY)
Page 219
February 12, 2002
Item #16A4
RESOLUTIONS 2002-52 THROUGH 2002-60 PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON PROPERTIES RE
CODE VIOLATIONS.
Item #16A5
RESOLUTIONS 2002-61 THROUGH 2002-70 PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON PROPERTIES RE
CODE VIOLATIONS.
Item #16A6
COMMITTEE'S SELECTION OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 02-3293 "CONSULTANT SERVICES
FOR UPDATE OF COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE (LDC)"- WITH GAIL EASLEY COMPANY
Item #16A7
AMENDMENT TO 2002 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND KELLEY, SWOFFORD, ROY, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 OF DISASTER RECOVERY FUNDS
Item # 16A8
Page 220
February 12, 2002
FINAL PLAT OF "BRIDGEWATER BAY, UNIT TWO"-
SUBJECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A9
FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA LAKES-PHASE 3A"-SUBJECT
TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY.
Item #16Al0
FINAL PLAT OF "FOREST PARK PHASE II' - SUBJECT TO
THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY.
Item #16Al 1
AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT AN ARTIFICIAL REEF
MONITORING GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA FISH AND
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $7,000
Item #16A12
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002- 04 RE PETITION CARNY-2001-AR-
1989, KENDALL W. GILBERT, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO
CONDUCT A CIRCUS ON FEBRUARY 23, 2002 TO BE HELD
AT THE WING SOUTH AIRPARK LOCATED OFF OF
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
Page 221
February 12, 2002
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2002-71 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "MADISON
MEADOWS"
Item # 16A 14
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN ESCROW AGREEMENT
RELATIVE TO CERTAIN CANAL IMPROVEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLDE CYPRESS PUD
Item #16A15
FINAL PLAT OF "LELY RESORT PHASE FOUR"
Item #16A16
FINAL PLAT OF "LELY RESORT PHASE NINE"
Item #16A17
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002-05 RE PETITION CARNY-200 I-AR-
2039, RUSSELL TUFF, CHAIRMAN, GOLDEN GATE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO
CONDUCT A FESTIVAL ON FEBRUARY 22 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 24, 2002, TO BE HELD ON COUNTY OWNED
PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER
Page 222
February 12, 2002
Item #16A18
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002-06 RE PETITION CARNY-2002-AR-
2019, SANDRA RAMOS, PROGRAM LEADER, COLLIER
COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT,
REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON
FEBRUARY 28 THROUGH MARCH 3, 2002 ON COUNTY
OWNED PROPERTY AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT
Item #16A19
RESOLUTION-2002-72 RE WAIV1NG FEES FOR LOT MOWING
ASSESSMENT SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2001-426
Item # 16B 1
RESOLUTION 2002-73 INCREASING THE SPEED LIMIT FROM
THIRTY MILES PER HOUR (30 MPH) TO THIRTY-FIVE MILES
PER HOUR (35 MPH) ON VALEWOOD DRIVE FOR AN
ESTIMATED COST OF $300.00
Item # 16B2
STAFF TO PREPARE AND ADVERTISE THE FOREST LAKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING
UNIT (MSTU) BEAUTIFICATION ORDINANCE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE TAX CAP
Item #16B3
Page 223
February 12, 2002
EXPENDITURE OF GAS TAX FUNDS UNDER ENHANCED
CONSULTANT SERVICES PROJECT NO. 60109 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSPORTATION
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Item # 16B4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO SHIFT FUNDING RESOURCES
AMONG PROJECT TO OPTIMIZE USE OF IMPACT FEES FOR
VARIOUS ROAD PROJECTS
Item #16B5
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR THE LELY STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Item # 16B6
RESOLUTION 2002-74 AUTHORIZING THE
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 5310 GRANT APPLICATION AND APPLICABLE
DOCUMENTS
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2002-75 AUTHORIZING THE
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE THE ATTACHED FEDERAL TRANSIT
Page 224
February 12, 2002
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 GRANT APPLICATION
AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
Item # 16B8
RESOLUTION 2002-76 SUPPORTING CONTINUING EFFORTS
TO SECURE THE COUNTY'S TRANSPORTATION OUTREACH
PROGRAM (TOP) FUNDING FOR GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE TOP COUNCIL ON
OCTOBER 26, 2001 AND NOW IS BEING CONSIDERED BY
THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE FOR $8.45 MILLION.
Item #16B9
RESOLUTION 2002-77 APPROVING FEBRUARY 15, 2002 AS
COLLIER AREA TRANSIT DAY TO ALLOW FREE RIDES IN
OBSERVANCE OF THEIR ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY ON
FEBRUARY 15, 2002
Item #16C 1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST
REAL PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
Item # 16C2
WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND APPROVE AN
ADDITIONAL $11,000 IN CONSULTING FEE TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GROUP (PRMG) FOR THE
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
Page 225
February 12, 2002
Item #16C3
SOLE-SOURCE SOFTWARE VENDOR FOR THE UTILITY
BILLING AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT
SOFTWARE SYSTEM AUTHORIZED
Item #16C4
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND/OR
SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16C5
STAFF TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT WITH BIG ISLAND
EXCAVATING, INC. AND E.R. JAHNA, INC. REGARDING
CONTRACT #02-3304 "PRODUCTION OF BEACH
COMPATIBLE SAND"
Item #16C6
STAFF TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT WITH D.N. HIGGINS,
INC.; PHILLIPS & JORDAN, INC.; AND SOIL TECH
DISTRIBUTORS OF NAPLES, INC. FOR CONTRACT #02-3305
"TRANSPORT, PLACEMENT AND GRADING OF BEACH
COMPATIBLE SAND"
Item # 16C7
Page 226
February 12, 2002
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES
AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR EXPANSION OF THE NAPLES
SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION
Item # 16C8
WORK ORDER #HM-FT-02-01 WITH HOLE MONTES INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $104,690.00 TO PERFORM PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION OF A RECLAIMED WATER MAIN
BETWEEN RADIO ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD,
PROJECT NUMBER 74035
Item #16C9
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RESTORE TOTAL FUNDING OF
MARCO ISLAND BREAKWATER MODIFICATIONS PROJECT
Item # 16C 10
CONTRACTUAL DUTIES TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A
SEWER FORCE MAIN FROM RICHARD K. BENNETT,
TRUSTEE ASSIGNED TO VESTCOR FUND XV, LTD.,
PROJECT NUMBER 70054
Item # 16C 11
RESOLUTION 2002-78 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
Page 227
February 12, 2002
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C12
RESOLUTION 2002-79 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C13
RESOLUTION 2002-80 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
Item # 16C 14
RESOLUTION 2002-81 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
Page 228
February 12, 2002
Item # 16C 15
RESOLUTION 2002-82 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
Item # 16D 1
CHANGE IN DATE FROM MAY 3 AND 4, 2002 TO APRIL 12
AND 13, 2002 OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SPECIAL EVENT FOR THE 2002
COUNTRY JAM
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 2002-83 APPROVING TEMPORARY ROAD
CLOSURE OF STATE ROAD 29 FOR ROBERTS RANCH
ROUNDUP CATTLE DRIVE ON MARCH 23, 2002
Item #16E 1
BID REJECTED FOR 01-3303, CHARTER BUS SERVICES
Item # 16E2
BID #02-3314 FOR THE ADVERTISING OF DELINQUENT
REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES
Page 229
February 12, 2002
AWARDED TO TUFF PUBLICATIONS
Item # 16E3
CONTRACT #01-3289 "FIXED TERM MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES"- AWARDED TO
CH2M HILL; ANCHOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS; TECO
BGA, INC.; AND TILDEN, LOBNITZ, COOPER.
Item #16E4 - Moved to Item # 10C
Item #16E5
TO RE-APPROPRIATE $110,000 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2001 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST TO ASSIST
THE GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
WITH THE PURCHASE OF A WATER TANKER FIRE TRUCK
Item # 16F 1
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN STATE OF FLORIDA
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND
ASSISTANCE COMPETITIVE GRANT APPLICATIONS
Item # 16F2
RESOLUTION 2002-84 ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EMERGENCY
PROTECTIVE MEASURE EXPENDITURES
Page 230
February 12, 2002
Item # 16F3
EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,548.49 TO METRO
AVIATION FOR THE FAA MANDATED 800-HOUR
INSPECTION OF THE COUNTY MEDFLIGHT HELICOPTER
Item # 16I 1
COMMISSIONER REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT
FOR NAPLES AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WAKE UP
NAPLES ON JANUARY 16, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $17.00
AS A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
(COMMISSIONER CARTER)'
Item # 16J 1
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 231
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 12, 2002 Board Meeting
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
mo
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. Disbursements from January 11, 2002 - January 17, 2002.
2. Disbursements from January 18, 2002 - January 24, 2002.
B. Districts:
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board - Meeting Minutes for
October 1 st, 2001.
C. Minutes:
Collier Cotmty Planning Commission - Agenda for September 19, 2001,
December 20, 2001, Minutes of December 20, 2001
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for January 11,
2002; Minutes of December 21,2001.
o
1-75/Golden Gate Interchange Advisory Committee - Minutes of
December 12, 2001
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board -
Agenda for January 3, 2002.
a) Incentives Sub-Committee - Agenda for December 20, 2002
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for January 2, 2002, Special
Meeting Agenda for January 23, 2002.
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Minutes of November 26,
2001.
o
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory CommiRe.~,.- Agenda for
December 19, 2001; Minutes of November 19, ' '
H:Data/Format
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Other:
1)
Health and Human Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for
November 29, 2001; Minutes of November 29, 2001.
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Notice of Meeting - January 31, 2002.
Historical & Archaeological Preservation Advisory Committee - Agenda
for January 16, 2002.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for January 16, 2002,
Minutes for December 19, 2001.
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee- Agenda for
November 7, 2001.
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for January 14, 2002;
Minutes of December 10, 2001.
Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board - Agenda for October 4, 2001.
Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Minutes of
December 10, 2001.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for
January 11, 2002; Minutes of December 14, 2001.
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for January 8,
2002; Minutes of December 11,2001.
H:Data/Format
February 12, 2002
Item #16L1 -Continued to February 26, 2002 Meeting
SETTLEMENT OF ALL PENDING LITIGATION AND CLAIMS
INVOLVING THOMAS WAJERSKI, INCLUDING WITHOUT
LIMITATION, CASE NOS. 95-3067-CA-01 AND 95-2955-CA IN
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CASE NO. 99-303 IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA, AND CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ALL NECESSARY
SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS
Item #16L2
APPLICATION FOR TAX DEEDS FOR 258 COUNTY-HELD
TAX CERTIFICATES AND NOTICE TO PROCEED TO THE
TAX COLLECTOR
Item #16L3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 265B AND 265BT IN
THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JEFFREY
GARGIULO, ETAL, GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD, PROJECT
NO. 63041 - STAFF TO DEPOSIT 500.00 INTO THE REGISTRY
OF THE COURT
Item # 16L4
Page 232
February 12, 2002
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO
REPRESENT THE COUNTY IN VANDERBILT SHORES
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., ET AL, V. COLLIER
COUNTY, CASE NO. 01-5080-CA-HDH IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND THE AQUAPORT, LC V. COLLIER COUNTY,
CASE NO. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
EXEMPT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FROM THE
PURCHASING POLICY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION VII.G OF
THE PURCHASING POLICY AND CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ANY
NECESSARY RETENTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE OUTSIDE
COUNSEL
Item #165
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, DEAN L. LARSON
AND BETTE L. LARSON, FOR PARCELS 210 AND 210T IN THE
AMOUNT OF $14,300.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. DOUGLAS TERRYETAL, CASE NO. 00-1297-CA.
PROJECT NO. 63041 - $2,000 TO BE PAID INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L6
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, RACETRAC
PETROLEUM INC., WENDELL L. KRAMER, SALVATORE F.
ANGLIERI AND SALVATORE C. GRECH, FOR PARCELS 124
AND 125 IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,550.00 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANTHONY F. JANCIGAR, AS
TRUSTEE, ETAL, CASE NO. 00-0142-CA. PROJECT NO. 60111
Page 233
February 12, 2002
Item #16L7
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, RICHARD R.
TOWNSEND, FOR PARCELS 367 AND 367T IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,880.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
RICHARD R. TOWNSEND, ETAL, CASE NO. 00-2001-CA.
PROJECT NO. 63041 - $480.00 TO BE PAID INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item # 16L8
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, ROBERTO BOLLT,
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, FOR PARCEL 101 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $200,000.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. ROBERTO BOLLT, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, ETAL, CASE NO.
00-2433-CA, RANDALL BOULEVARD. PROJECT NO. 60171 -
$156,400 TO BE PAID INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item # 17A
RESOLUTION 2002-85 RE PETITION CU-01-AR-1620, JAMES
WEEKS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE "7" OF THE "E"
ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR AN EARTH
MINING OPERATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF DESOTO BOULEVARD BETWEEN 31 sT
AVENUE NE AND 29TM AVENUE NE IN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, CONSISTING OF 6.62+ ACRES. THIS ITEM WAS
CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 22, 2002 BCC MEETING
Item # 17B
Page 234
February 12, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-86 RE PETITION AVPLAT2001-AR1742
DISCLAIMING, RENOUNCING AND VACATING THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
LOCATED ON A PORTION OF TRACT B, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT OF "TIBURON-THE NORMAN ESTATES AT
PELICAN MARSH UNIT 23"
Item # 17C
RESOLUTION 2002-87 RE CU-2001-AR-1225, GEORGE L.
VARNADOE, ESQ., OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP,
VARNADOE AND ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING
BARRON COLLIER COMPANIES, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE #20 OF THE A-MHO AND A-MHO-
ACSC/ST DISTRICT FOR A "SPORTING AND RECREATIONAL
CAMP" LOCATED APPROXIMATELY THREE QUARTERS OF
A MILE WEST OF S.R. 29 AND APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE
SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD (C.R. 858), (COMPANION TO ST-
2001-AR- 1226)
Item # 17D
RESOLUTION 2002-88 CORRECTING SCHEDULE TWO OF
APPENDIX A, WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES OF THE
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED
Page 235
February 12, 2002
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:41 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented~ or as corrected
, as
Page 236
February 12, 2002
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 237