BCC Minutes 03/26/2002 RMarch 26, 2002
REGULAR MEETING OF March 26, 2002
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals 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 9:02 a.m. in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
JIM COLETTA
TOM HENNING
JAMES D. CARTER, PH.D
DONNA FIALA
FRED COYLE
ALSO PRESENT:
TOM OLLIFF, County Manager
JIM MUDD, Assist. County Mgr.
JOE SCHMITT, Comm. Dev.
Services Admin.
DAVID WEIGEL, Cnty. Attorney
RAMIRO MANALICH, Assist.
County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
March 26, 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.
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
1
March 26, 2002
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.
e
e
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend David Richter, Gulf Shore Community Church
AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary
agenda.)
B. February 26, 2002 - Regular Meeting
C. February 27, 2002 - Special Meeting
D. March 4, 2002 - Special Meeting
e
E. March 6, 2002 - Workshop
PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation for Conservancy Volunteer Month.
Prosser, President and CEO of the Conservancy.
B. Proclamation for Friends of the Parks.
To be accepted by Kathy
Ce
Proclamation for Collier County Community Development Week. To be
accepted by Mr. Denny Baker, Interim HUI Director.
Proclamation for the Anniversary of Know Your County Government Week.
To be accepted by Sherrie Achors and Heather Woodward.
me
Proclamation for acceptance of the Christopher Columbus Statue by the
Knights of Columbus.
SERVICE AWARDS
Five-Year Attendees:
2
March 26, 2002
1) Christopher Sottilaro, Water Treatment
2) Aurelio Perez, Parks and Recreation
3) James Hendrixson, Code Enforcement
Fifteen-Year Attendees:
4) John Poczynski, Emergency Medical Services
Twenty-Year Attendees:
5) Ervin Collins, Transportation
PRESENTATIONS
A presentation from the most recent "Ideas Team" following their recent
visit to Sarasota County.
PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
A. Public Comments on General Topics
Public Petition request regarding traffic signal at the Orchards and
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
This item is being continued indefinitely. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. CU-2001-AR-1456, Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc.,
representing Maloney and Sons Equipment Inc., requesting Conditional Use
"20" of the Industrial district for a waste recycling and transfer facility for
property located at 3600 Prospect Avenue, in Section 36, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.78+ acres.
This item was continued from the February 26~ 2002 Board of County
Commissioner Meeting. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
CU-2001-AR-1420, William L. Hoover, AICP, Hoover Planning and
Development Incorporated, representing Pastor Colin Rampton, of the
Seventh Day Adventist Church, requesting conditional uses "7" and "11" of
the "A-MHO" Rural Agricultural Zoning District/Mobile Home Zoning
3
March 26, 2002
ge
e
Overlay, for a church and child care center on property located at the
northeast comer of Lilac Lane and Immokalee Road in Section 23,
Township 47 South, Range 27 East.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2001-AR-1414,
Kathy Morgan, of Land Development Consultants, representing The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, requesting Conditional Use "2" of the
RSF-3 zoning district for a church for property located in Section 32,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
5+ acres.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Acceptance of Settlement in the Case of B.J. Boyer-Savard, et al, vs. Collier
County, et al, Case No. 01-1082-CA, pending in the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit Court, Collier County, Florida, relating to the extension of a boat
dock.
Be
This item continued from the March 12, 2002 Board of County
Commissioner Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
PUDZ-2002-AR-1978, requesting a rezone from "RSF-3" Residential Single
Family to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as the Henderson
Creek PUD, allowing 500 residential dwelling units; and requesting an
affordable housing density bonus agreement, requested by Gateway
Shoppes, LLC, represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman
and Johnson, and Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, all for
property located on the Southside of the Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) and
approximately one-half mile East of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section
3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of members to the Tourist Development Council.
Ce
Discussion regarding Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act (L&HWCA) and its applicability to Collier County's Contractors'
Ordinance. (Commissioner Henning)
4
March 26, 2002
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
De
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida supporting increased funding for Regional Planning Councils.
(Commissioner Carter)
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Recommendation to confirm the
appointment of James DeLony to the position of Public Utilities
Administrator. (Thomas W. Olliff, County Manager)
Bo
Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) set a
meeting for April 30, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon; estimated cost to
the CRA is $900.00. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
Ce
Adopt a Resolution authorizing condemnation of right-of-way and/or
easements required for the construction of a four-lane section of Immokalee
Road between Wilson Boulevard and CR 951/Collier Boulevard (Capital
Improvement Element No. 71, Project No. 60018). Estimated Fiscal Impact:
$5,732,106. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
De
Present adopted Residential Parking Standards for the Board of County
Commissioners reconsideration. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
E®
This item to be heard at 11:30 a.m. Review the written and oral reports of
the Advisory Boards scheduled for review in 2002 in accordance with
Ordinance 86-41.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. Report on the Pelican Bay MSTBU Ordinance and Public Opinion Poll.
FUTURE AGENDAS
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
5
March 26, 2002
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Shalom 2000 Building
Addition.
2)
Amend a Grant Agreement from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission for derelict vessel removal to increase the
amount awarded by $35,000 to a total of $46,000.
3)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Medical Offices at
Napa Ridge.
4)
Petition CARNY-2001-AR- 1713, Peg Ruby, Special Events
Coordinator, Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting permit
to conduct a carnival April 12 and 13, 2002, on county owned
property at the Vineyards Community Park located at 6231 Arbor
Boulevard.
5)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"L'Ermitage at Grey Oaks".
6)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Strada Bella" and
approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
7)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Indigo Lakes Unit
Five".
8) Adopt Resolutions enforcing liens on properties for Code Violations.
9)
Approve the Settlement Agreement providing for abatement of
violation and compromise of lien in two Code Enforcement Lien
Foreclosures entitled Collier County v. Anthony J. Varano, Case Nos.
99-4226-CA and 00-3430-CA.
6
March 26, 2002
Be
ii)
13)
i4)
16)
i7)
18)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for "Island Walk Phase Two".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Pine Air Lakes
Unit Three".
Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Temple Shalom.
Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency
approve the agreement between the Board of County Commissioners,
the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Collier County Clerk
of Courts for provision of secretarial services to the Community
Redevelopment Agency by the Clerk of Courts.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the agreement between the Board of County Commissioners, the
Community Redevelopment Agency and the Collier County Clerk of
Courts for provision of secretarial services to the Community
Redevelopment Agency by the Clerk of Courts.
Approval of the Mortgage and Promissory Note for a Two Hundred
Thirty-Seven Thousand ($237,000) Dollar Loan to Big Cypress
Housing Corporation to assist in the construction of the Main Street
Village Affordable Housing Development in Immokalee. Fund
source is the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Reappropriate $30,000 of funds from Tourist Development Reserves
to Cover FY02 Brochure expenditures of the County Sheriff and
Emergency Management Departments.
Approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the Collier County District
School Board to authorize plan review and inspection services for
construction and maintenance projects of the school districts under the
Florida Building Code (FBC); and adopting a schedule of fees for
such services.
Amend the Budget to reallocate reserve funds in the amount of
$100,000.00, previously approved by the Board of County
Commissioners in July 2001, for the Immokalee Housing Initiative.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
7
March 26, 2002
Ce
1)
Approve the use of contracted mitigation banks for road construction
projects.
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#02-3347 for the Pelican Bay U.S. 41 berm irrigation system to
Collier Irrigation in the amount of $98,914.00 and approve the
Chairman to execute the contract documents upon attorney review.
3)
Approve an Easement Agreement and accept a Drainage Easement for
the Lely Stormwater Improvement Project, not to exceed $2,600.00.
4)
Approve a Budget Amendment for Work Order Number WMI-02-04
with Wilson Miller Inc., in the amount of $78,100.00 for the
preparation of design documents for improvements of 13th Street SW,
from 16th Avenue SW to Golden Gate Boulevard, Project Number
69068.
5)
Approval of rate of pay adjustments for all bus operations and office
staff of the Collier Area Transit (CAT) System. Contract increase of
$48,889 for the year.
6)
Approve Work Order No. APC-FT-02-01 with Apac, Inc., for turn
lane improvements in the amount of $79,814.45 on Golden Gate
Parkway at 53rd Street SW, Project No. 60016.
7)
Approve a Budget Amendment for a mid-year budget adjustment to
the Transportation Capital Project Budget to bring it in line with the
FY02 Transportation 5 year work program as presented during the
Transportation segment of the 2001 AUIR. The proposed budget
change equals $41,595,221.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Award Work Order SC-02-45 to Surety Construction Company for
general contracting services related to noise issues at the North
County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project 70063, in the amount
of $61,000.
2)
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 $18.00 to record the liens.
8
March 26, 2002
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Approve Change Order 1 to Gulf States Inc. for the Vineyards reuse
water automation project, Contract 01-3211, in the amount of
$71,210.
Approve Work Order GH-FT-02-3 with Greeley and Hansen LLC, for
the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis
Wellfield Expansion to 20-MGD, Project 70892, in the amount of
$391,365.
Approval to enter an agreement with the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for the reimbursement of approximately $75,000
for emergency protective measure expenditures resulting from
Tropical Storm Gabrielle.
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 1991 Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact is $22.50
to record the liens.
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 $42.00 to record the liens.
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 1993 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact
is $52.50 to record the liens.
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 $64.50 to record the liens.
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
9
March 26, 2002
12)
13)
14)
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact
is $88.50 to record the liens.
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 $100.50 to record the liens.
Approve annual service contract with U.S. Filter for maintenance and
repair of odor control units at the South County Water Reclamation
Facility, in the amount of $39,600.00.
Approve Work Order GH-FT-02-4 with Greeley and Hansen LLC, for
the Growth Management Plan- Sanitary Sewer and Portable Water
Sub-Elements Update and Reclaimed Water Sub-Element, Projects
70070 and 73066, in the amount of $112,500. This effort reflects
FY2001 Master Plan Updates.
Waive formal competition and approve the purchase of 100 remote
transmitting units from Data Flow Systems, Inc., for monitoring
wastewater lift stations for the cost of $730,000.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Eo
1)
Approve a License Agreement with the Marco Island Historical
Society to designate land for a future museum on Marco Island.
2)
Approval of an Agreement with Dreambound Enterprises, Inc., for the
performance of Jo Dee Messina for the Fourth Annual Country Jam
Concert in the amount of $60,000.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
2)
Award Bid #02-3329 for the annual contract for ready mix concrete to
Schwab Ready Mix Inc., and Krehling Industries for an estimated
annual expenditure of $25,000.
Approve a Resolution revising the Employee of the Month Program as
established in Ordinance 87-5.
10
March 26, 2002
3)
Request Board approval of an Inteflocal Agreement with the City of
Naples for 800 MHz Radio Maintenance.
4)
Request Board approval to purchase communications equipment to
upgrade the VHF Paging System utilized by Public Safety Agencies in
the amount of $52,176.80.
5)
Award Contracts #01-3291 "Fixed Term Professional Construction
Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Services" to the following firms:
TBE Group, HDR Construction Control Corp., Law Engineering and
Environmental Services, CH2M Hill, Johnson Engineering, Hole
Montes, Barraco and Associates (estimated annual amount $350,000).
6)
Award Contract #01-3292 "Fixed Term Professional Structural
Engineering Services" to the following firms: Jenkins and Charland,
CH2M Hill, American Consulting Engineers, TKW Consulting
Engineering, Anchor Engineering Consultants, Pyper Engineering
(estimated annual amount $175,000).
7)
Award RFP 02-3327 - Annual Contract for roadway contractors to
Better Roads, Inc., Bonness, Inc., APAC-Florida, Inc., and Florida
State Underground for an estimated annual amount of $700,000 to
$800,000.
8)
Recommendation to declare twelve hundred and fifteen (1,215)
County-owned voting machines and other miscellaneous voting
equipment as surplus and authorize a sale of the surplus property to
County employees and the public pursuant to Florida State Statute
274.06 (estimated revenue $12,150).
9)
Authorize Work Order #BSSW-02-01 issued to Barany Schmitt
Summers Weaver and Partners Incorporated, in the amount of
$89,630.00, for the design and construction management of EMS
Station #19 to be located on Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Request Board approval for Multiyear Telephone Switch Maintenance
Agreement with Avaya Inc. using State of Florida Contract Pricing
and Master Agreement at an annual cost of $104,000.
11
March 26, 2002
11)
Amend the Resolution (02-120) establishing an Employee Health and
Wellness Prevention, Incentive and Reimbursement Program to
reward employees who participate in County sponsored or endorsed
Health and Wellness Programs in an amount not to exceed $35,000
annually.
Request Board approval of a lease agreement between M/A Com
Private Radio Systems Inc., and Collier County generating annual
revenue of $72,900 and a Resolution regarding same.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Board of County Commissioners approval to advertise an amendment
to an Ordinance of Collier County, Florida to increase the millage rate
for the Isles of Capri Municipal Fire Service Taxing District; and to
provide for an effective date.
2)
Approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Certifications of Inability
to comply with Rule 29 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section
1910.134 (G) (4) for the Ochopee Fire Control District and the Isles of
Capri Fire Control District.
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #02-
250 (General Fund 001, IT Administration).
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1)
Authorize the County Attorney to draft an Ordinance whereby the
Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Subsection 332.08 (2)
(A), Florida Statutes, will adopt the "Collier County Airport Authority
Rules and Regulations for General Aviation Airports" and will specify
the penalties that can be applied against the violator; also to specify
various enforcement alternatives that may be used to enforce those
penalties in the same manner in which penalties prescribed by other
Collier County Rules, Regulations, and Ordinances can be enforced;
also that the Airport Authority shall advertise the proposed Ordinance
in the Naples Daily News and bring that Ordinance to the Board at a
12
March 26, 2002
public hearing to consider adoption of this requested ordinance.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Je
Ke
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
te
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
carryforward funding for the Sheriff's Office.
2)
To present to the Board of County Commissioners the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended September 30,
2001. Copy of Report is available for viewing in the County
Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier
County Government Complex.
3)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners serve as
the local coordinating unit of government in the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement's Anti-Drug Abuse Act Formula Grant Program.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Settlement in Bettencourt v. Collier County, Case No. 00-0283-
CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida, pursuant to which the County would pay $150,000
and all claims against the County would be dismissed with prejudice,
said $150,000 settlement was arrived at during a mediation of the
matter.
2)
3)
Approve the agreed order awarding expert fees as to Parcels 246 and
246T in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Jose Alvarado, et al,
(Golden Gate Boulevard, Project No. 63041), in the amount of
$4,512.44.
Approve the Agreed Order awarding eXpert fees to Parcels 244 and
244T in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Jose Alvarado, et al,
13
March 26, 2002
4)
5)
6)
(Golden Gate Boulevard, Project No. 63041).
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement
acquisition of Parcel 357 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
Shane Robertson, et al, (Golden Gate Boulevard, Project No. 63041).
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcels 172 and 772 in the Lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Dominique C. Rihs, as Trustee of the Land Trust Number
5146-1, et al, Case No. 01-0819-CA. Project No. 60071.
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcels 170 and 770 in the Lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Fred R. Sutherland, et al, Case No. 01-0756-CA. Project
No. 60071.
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
An Ordinance repealing in its entirety Collier County Ordinance No. 01-49,
which created the Community of Character Council.
An Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-76 which
created the Livingston Road Phase II Beautification Municipal Service
Taxing Unit; providing for amendment to Section Six to allow property
owners and appointed representatives of property owners to serve on the
Advisory Committee; providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and
Ordinance; providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an
14
March 26, 2002
effective date.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2001-AR- 1584,
Stan Whittemore, representing T. Michael and Barbara J. Brott, requesting a
5~foot variance from the required 30-foot rear yard setback to 25 feet for
property located at 384 Fox Den Circle, further described as Lot 32, Foxfire
Unit 3, in Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
15
March 26, 2002
March 26, 2002
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, will you all
rise, please, for the invocation by the Reverend David Richter, Gulf
Shore Community Church.
REVEREND RICHTER: Shall we pray together. Our most
gracious Heavenly Father, we thank you for the privilege of living in
Collier County. We thank you for the beauty of this day that you
have given us, and we thank you for this meeting here this morning.
We pray for our county commissioners, Father, that you would give
them your wisdom, which comes from above as they deal with the
issues pertaining to Collier County. We thank you for all the
residents that are represented here, and we ask your blessing upon
them, be in this meeting, and may your will be done. We thank you
for all that you are going to do today. We pray in your precious
name. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Reverend. One second
before we begin the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Dunnuck.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. In
conjunction with having the Friends of the Parks proclamation this
morning, we thought it would be a nice touch to bring up the junior
park rangers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, so I would ask that
they come forward. They're going to hand you out a little gift, and
then we'd also ask that you come down, step down from the podium,
and say the Pledge of Allegiance with them.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Reverend Richter said we're
fortunate to live in Collier County, and this is one of the reasons why
Page 2
March 26, 2002
we're fortunate. We have some of the most lovely children you could
ever imagine. And I know, I've got five of them as grandchildren.
And with that, Mr. Olliff, any changes?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. I'll walk you through your change list this morning.
The first item is a move of an item from your regular agenda to your
summary agenda. It's Item 8 A under your advertised public
hearings. It's a settlement agreement in the case of B. V. Boyer
Savard versus Collier County. We're moving that item to the
summary agenda, and it will become Item 17 D as in David.
The next item is an addition to your agenda. At the request of
Commissioner Henning, it would be a discussion regarding passive
parks, and that item will be 9 E, E as in Edward, on your agenda.
The next item is a deletion, which is Item 16 A 8. It's actually a
duplicate item from Item 16 A 9, and at staff's request we're simply
going to ask that that item be deleted from your agenda.
The next two items are moves from your consent to the regular
agenda. The first is the approval of use of contracted mitigation
banks for road construction projects. And at staff's request we're
asking that item be moved from Item 16 B as in boy, 1, to Item 10 F,
F as in Frank. I guess for the military that would be fox trot.
The next item would be a move from your consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now I understand.
MR. OLLIFF: 16 B, again, as in boy, 5, under the transportation
section to Item 10 G. It's the approval of the rate of pay adjustments
for the CAT system. That's -- move is being made at Commissioner
Coyle's request.
We're going to continue Item 16 G 1. That's on your consent
agenda, and it is a budget amendment report and approval for Budget
Amendment No. 02-250. We're going to ask that that be continued to
the meeting of April 9th.
Page 3
March 26, 2002
The last item is also a continuance of Item 16 L 1 to the April
9th meeting. That is, again, a settlement in the Bettencourt versus
Collier County case. At staffs request we're asking that item be
continued to your next meeting.
Mr. Chairman, just a note for the record, too, that for the
commission's sake, there are two time-certain items on your agenda.
There is a 10 A at 9:30, and there's also 10 E at 11:30.
With that, Mr. Chairman, that's all the changes or notes that I
have for the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we also have a time
certain for a 4-H luncheon we all have to be at. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Which is at 12:15.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, we'll start with
Commissioner Carter. Is there anything on the consent agenda or
anything else that you--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no changes for the record
under the summary agenda. The item for removal of the county
ordinance for community of character, I oppose having that removed
as an ordinance. Also if I would have been here, I would have voted
against terminating that program. So just for the record, you don't
need to pull it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have nothing. Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: 16 A 9 1 would like to move
off the consent agenda onto the regular agenda.
Page 4
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 16 A 9.
MR. OLLIFF: That would become 10 H.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10 H.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Also, 16 A 18, Immokalee
initiative.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more time on that number. 16
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: 18.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 18.
MR. OLLIFF: That item will become 10 1 on the regular
agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What was 10 H?
MR. OLLIFF: 16 A 9. It's moved from the consent agenda. It
becomes 10 H.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Mr. Carter, too, on
the ex Parte disclosures on the summary agenda. Do you have any?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have only the one, and that was
with regards to the ordinance and nothing else. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: None? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have none.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: No -- no, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear an approval for the -- the
minutes of the regular meeting, February 26th, of the workshop?
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll make that motion, but I
think we need to --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right. You're correct. Do I
hear a motion to approve the agenda?
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before you move to approve
Page 5
March 26, 2002
the agenda, one agenda note on regard to that motion which is 16 A
13, it's the board acting as the community and redevelopment agency,
and I would recommend that you have a separate vote since you're
acting as a different entity in that regard, so you can address the
entire consent agenda but have a vote separate on 16 A 13,
community redevelopment agency. That also appears on 10 B -- 10
B of your agenda. I'll remind you of that when we get to the regular
agenda also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve the -- the item the county attorney discussed under the
consent agenda and, also, that we approve the regular consent and
summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Thank you.
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
March 26, 2002
MOVE: ITEM 8A TO 17D: Acceptance of Settlement in the Case of B. J. Boyer-
Savard, et al, vs. Collier County, et al, Case No. 01-1082-CA, pending in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, Collier County, Florida, relating to the extension
of a boat dock. (Staff request.)
ADD: ITEM 9E: Discussion regarding passive parks. (Commissioner Henning.)
DELETE: ITEM 16(A)8: Adopt resolutions enforcing liens on properties for code
violations. (This is a duplicate of Item 16(A)9.) (Staff request.)
MOVE: ITEM 16(B)1 TO 10(F): Approve the use of contracted mitigation banks for
road construction projects. (Staff request.)
MOVE: ITEM 16(B)5 TO 10(G): Approval of rate of pay adjustments for all bus
operations and office staff of the Collier Area Transit (CAT) System. Contract
increase of $48,889 for the year. (Commissioner Coyle.)
CONTINUE: ITEM 16(G)1 TO APRIL 9, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approval of Budget
Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #02-250 (General Fund 001, IT
Administration). (Staff request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(L)1 TO APRIL 9, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approve the
Settlement in Bettencourt v. Collier County, Case No. 00-0283-CA, now pending in
the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida pursuant to which
the County would pay $150,000 and all claims against the County would be
dismissed with prejudice, said $150,000 settlement was arrived at during a
mediation of the matter. (Staff request.)
NOTE: For the record Item 10E should read, ".. in accordance with Ordinance
2001-55."
March 26, 2002
Item #2B-E
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, REGULAR MEETING;
FEBRUARY 27 SPECIAL MEETING; MARCH 4 SPECIAL
MEETING; AND MARCH 6, 2002 WORKSHOP MEETING-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve the
February 26th, 2002, regular meeting; February 27th, 2002, special
meeting; the March 4th, 2002, special meeting; and the workshop on
March 6, 2002.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
Item #3A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF MARCH
AS CONSERVANCY VOLUNTEER MONTH- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
And we start off with our proclamations. Commissioner Coyle,
you're -- you're up first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This proclamation will be
accepted by Kathy Prosser, president and CEO of The Conservancy
and all of the people in green shirts, could you-all step forward.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aqua green.
Page 7
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aqua green.
VOICE IN AUDIENCE: Teal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Teal. There are two people --
three people who don't have teal shirts on.
Whereas, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is the region's
leading nonprofit environmental organization; and,
Whereas, The Conservancy has helped protect nearly 300,000
acres of environmentally sensitive land since 1964, including
Fakahatchee Strand, Belle Mead, south Golden Gate Estates,
Rookery Bay, and Big Cypress Preserve; and,
Whereas, The Conservancy actively assists with state and
federal land acquisitions and rec -- restoration programs in the greater
Everglades ecosystem, and more than 5,500 members support The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and more than 700 volunteers
generously donate their time and expertise to The Conservancy of
Southwest Florida; and,
Whereas, The Conservancy helps shape environment policy in
south Florida by participating in and monitoring more than 125
Southwest Florida environmental issues annually; and,
Whereas, in addition to playing a key role in environmental
advocacy and protection, The Conservancy operates, in support of its
mission, the Naples Nature Center, the Briggs Nature Center, the
wildlife rehabilitation center, and the sea turtle monitoring and
protection project; and,
Whereas, The Conservancy provides environmental education
programs reaching thousands of adults and students every year; and,
Whereas, over 700 volunteers assist in the daily functioning of
The Conservancy, as museum docents, information desk volunteers,
store salespersonnel, wildlife caregivers, special events volunteers,
dock masters, boat captains, mailers, volunteer coordinators, office
helpers, couriers, carpenters, and horticultural assistants; and,
Page 8
March 26, 2002
Whereas, local business professionals, including veterinarians,
medical staff, and business leaders also donate their time and service;
and,
Whereas, in fiscal year 2001, volunteers donated more than
50,000 hours to The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commission of Collier County, Florida, that the month of March
2002 be designated as Conservancy Volunteer Month.
Done and ordered this 26th day of March 2002, Board of Coll --
Collier County Commissioners, James N. Coletta, chairman.
Congratulations.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you want to get a picture?
MS. PROSSER: Oh. Okay. Sorry about that. Say thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Congratulations.
MS. PROSSER: Thank you. Members of the commission, if I
may, just for a moment, thank you for the honor that you have
bestowed upon us at The Conservancy again this year. As you can
see from the wonderful folks that are represented here today, this --
these volunteers are the heart of not only our community but the heart
of The Conservancy. Without their support and their passion for the
environment, we could not do the wonderful things that we do at The
Conservancy on a regular basis to help serve our community.
So I thank you very much for this honor, and on behalf of the
whole board of directors from whose meeting I left to come here,
they all, also, extend their thanks and deep appreciation to all of our
volunteers for your great work. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 9
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Kathy -- Kathy, Kathy Prosser, do
you want to tell them about the upcoming fish fry and just put in a
fast plug?
MS. PROSSER: We even have invitations. I didn't even pay
for that. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Sally McCurgan (phonetic) is here. She's our volunteer
coordinator. She will pass out some fish fry invitations.
All of you may know we have a fish fry on Friday night, April
the 5th, at The Conservancy. And we just have a great time not only
at fish fries where some of our board members and me are serving up
the food and it's great eats but music and just a great time to come
together and have fun. We usually have seven, eight hundred people
and just a really good time, and we welcome all of you. Thanks for
that.
Item #3B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE FRIENDS OF THE
PARKS FOR THEIR DEDICATION AND SUPPORT OF THE
COUNTY'S PARK SYSTEM- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Would the
representatives for the Friends of the Park please come to the front.
Whereas, the Friends of the Park is a core group of volunteers
involved in helping to raise funds for special park additions,
promoting programs, assisting in planning of new programs, and of
needed facilities; and,
Whereas, the goal of this group is to develop community pride
and partnership between the parks and recreation staff and the
community to meet the recreational needs of citizens who utilize the
Page 10
March 26, 2002
facilities to make the community parks the hub for community
activities and to develop a group of interested citizens who will assist
the parks and recreation department in acquiring specialty equipment
and additional facilities for future recreational needs; and,
Whereas, the Friends of the Park have volunteered a total of
more than 3,990 hours at 7 different park locations.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed this 26th day of March 2002,
that the Friends of the Park be recognized by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, for their dedication and
support of the county's park system.
Done and ordered this 26th day of March 2002. Motion to
approve.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Will you stay there, please?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me give this to somebody --
Bob, are you a representative?
MR. MURRY: I will try.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I guess I'm up now.
MR. MURRY: Commissioners, good morning. Bob Murry is
my name, and I'm a representative of the Friends of the Park, East
Naples Community Park. And, surely, I cannot speak for all of the
Friends of the Park here, but they do work that is beyond the scope of
my knowledge.
But for the little bit that we play, the part that we play, I'd like to
mention that it is a great feeling for all of us to be members of that
Page 11
March 26, 2002
group to be able to participate in some small way, to give of
ourselves so that children and adults and residents of the community
can enjoy the wonderful green spaces.
I think of parks and recreation, and I think of the word
"recreation." It's a place to come to to forget about the day's activities
that are stressful and to enjoy the moments of pleasure, the simple
things that are there. I watch the children who enjoy the programs
that are there and who benefit from the socialization and the learning
they get.
I'm very proud to be a member of the group, and I will say that
we will invite you soon to come to East Naples Community Park
where we will, having purchased a flag pole, have a wonderful
ceremony combining all of the elements of our community to be able
to enjoy more fully that park. Thank you. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. SANDERS: Marianne Sanders from Friends of Barefoot
Beach. We have two events this month that I just wanted to
acknowledge. One Commissioner Carter joined us a short time ago
to take down the fence. And it's a real celebration. I want to thank
you for preserving the preserve. That was a very special vote.
I also want to acknowledge that we -- we created two new
publications this year which I will share with you. But I especially
want to acknowledge that the new "Trail Notes" is dedicated to one
of our founders, Nada Eisenbud (phonetic), who died last August.
Her husband is here, one of the founders of Friends of Barefoot
Beach 12 years ago, and I'd like Leon to stand up. (Applause.)
MS. SANDERS: Thank you.
Item #3C
Page 12
March 26, 2002
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 1
THROUGH APRIL 7, 2002, AS COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now the next proclamation is my
honor. I'm going to ask Dennis -- Denny Baker, the interim HUD
director, and Lee Combs to please come up front.
Whereas, in 2001 Collier County became an entitlement
recipient of federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, HUD, under the community development block
grant, CB -- CDBG, program; and,
Whereas, the CDBG program has strengthened America's
communities by providing affordable and accessible housing,
infrastructure improvements, economic development initiatives, and
other public services and the revitalization improvements; and,
Whereas, 2002 marks the 28th anniversary of the CDBG
program; and the secretary of HUD has proclaimed April 1st through
the 7th as National Community Development Week; and,
Whereas, the theme is CDBG: uniting communities across
America and is intended to send a strong message to Congress and
the general public that the CDBG program plays an important role in
ensuring the viability of our cities; and,
Whereas, Collier County looks forward to continued
implementation of its CDBG-funded projects and activities, as well
as its continued partnership with the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development and other agencies that provide services to
Collier County residents.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 1st
through April 7th be recognized as Collier County Community
Page 13
March 26, 2002
Development Week.
Done and ordered this, the 26th day of March, 2002, Jim
Coletta, chairman.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All in favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right. Mr. Chairman, I
believe I have the next proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold on just a minute.
MR. BAKER: Commissioner -- it's okay. Just a couple of
words, the HUI staff and appreci -- and I appreciate your recognition
of this very significant countywide program.
Just to remind you of some of our far-reaching work, our
projects include $250,000 for the Park River Community Center,
$600,000 for 108 low-income homes at Habitat village, $48,000 for
street lights in Immokalee; $47,000 to refurbish 5 units for Collier
housing alternatives; $213,000 for infrastructure work of 40 homes in
Immokalee; and $224,000 for infrastructure work for the Wolf
Apartments.
These type of investments in our community make a very
positive difference to our county citizens. We truly appreciate your
recognition and support of the CDBG programs. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #3D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MARCH 24-
30, 2002 AS THE 23p'I) ANNIVERSARY OF THE KNOW YOUR
Page 14
March 26, 2002
COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. Next proclamation will be
accepted by Sherrie Achors and Heather Woodward. And we have
28 students in the audience. And if you will all come forward while I
do this proclamation. You can bring the group up here face the
cameras. Wave to Mom and Dad, your friends.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just spread right out.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's great. Generally holy
week isn't so early that you can get out of school for this thing. But
it's my pleasure this morning to read this proclamation.
Whereas, in Collier County -- start that again.
Whereas, Collier County government is a complex and
multifaceted process which affects the lives of all residents in Collier
County; and,
Whereas, an increased knowledge of how various aspects of
county government work can enhance an individual's quality of life
in Collier County; and,
Whereas, it is desirable -- desirable for all county residents to be
knowledgeable of the county government and how it works; and,
Whereas, the League of Women Voters of Collier County,
Collier County 4-H, and Collier County Public Schools have co-
sponsored Know Your Government Teen Citizenship program for 23
years.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of March 24
to 30, 2002, be designated as the 23rd anniversary of Know Your
County Government Week.
Done and ordered this 26th day of March 2002, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Jim Coletta, chairman.
Page 15
March 26, 2002
Mr. Chairman, I move for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All in favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
(Applause.)
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody know what's
for lunch?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have a spokeperson?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You are the spokesperson.
There you are. Thank you so much. Step over to the microphone,
please.
MS. ACHORS: Good morning. My name is Sherrie Achors,
and I'm a junior at Naples High School.
MS. WOODWARD: And my name is Heather Woodward, and
I'm a senior at Lely High School. And we're speaking on behalf of
the students who participated in Know Your County Govemment.
We would first like to thank the commission, the county
administrator, the constitutional officers, the county division and
department heads, the adults in 4-H, the League of Women Voters,
and the Collier County Public Schools who have worked together to
make Know your County Government program possible.
MS. ACHORS: Thirty-three high school students from
throughout the county are participating representing Barrion --
Barron Coller, Community School, Immokalee, Lely, and Naples, as
well as some home schoolers.
MS. WOODWARD: Some of the people we met included --
MS. ACHORS: -- Michelle Arnold, code enforcement; David
Southall, works at the county museum; Jody Walters, director of
domestic animal care service; Guy Carlton, the tax collector;
Lieutenant Scott Barnett who works for the sheriff's department; John
Dunnuck, director of public service division; Denise Kirk, who works
Page 16
March 26, 2002
at the county landfill; Steve Messner at the south -- south water
treatment plant --.
MS. WOODWARD: -- John Pratt at South County Wastewater
Reclamation Facility; Denise Layton, director of cooperative
extension services; Ken Pineau, who runs the emergency service
department; Pat Pochen (phonetic) --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pachopin.
MS. WOODWARD: -- works at the supervise -- yeah. Works
at the supervisor of elections; Doug Gorham from the Property
Appraiser's Office; Joan Kaufer, director of health department; Fred
Thomas, director of Collier County Housing Agency; and Jack
Levay, department head of Collier County Public Schools.
MS. ACHORS: We have learned about some of the challenges
facing Collier County, such as the development in Collier County is
rapidly growing and changing. Because of this, the water treatment
plant has had to expand the facilities, code enforcers needing more
people out in the field, animal services needing more people out in
the field, and the Collier County landfill needing to find new ways of
disposing of trash in Collier County-- in Collier County because they
are no longer allowed to expand.
MS. WOODWARD: We're also looking forward to the rest of
the day and using the knowledge that we have acquired during the
past three weeks that we've been involved in this program.
MS. ACHORS: In addressing the board, we are able to add
another component to our learning process. Again, thank you for the
opportunity to take part in this program and for your support.
(Applause.)
Item #3E
PROCLAMATION ACCEPTING THE CHRISTOPHER
Page 17
March 26, 2002
COLUMBUS STATUE FROM THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd
like to call up the Knights of Columbus, please. And while they're
coming up, Commissioners, and -- and ladies and gentlemen in the
audience and our esteemed county manager and naturally Sue Filson,
I had the honor and the privilege last Saturday to go to the blessing of
the statue of Christopher Columbus in District 3 at the satellite
government center next to the -- the new sheriff's substation. And I
was there representing the board -- the board of commissioners. We
had a nice crowd. The Knights of Columbus did a excellent job of--
of presentation of the -- of the statue and also fed the crowd there. So
I will go ahead and read this proclamation.
Whereas, Christopher Columbus had a vision in faith and
courage to achieve one of the most daring remarkable expletory feats
in history of humankind; and,
Whereas, his successful voyage would pave the way for millions
of immigrants to seek a better life in the new world; and,
Whereas, the exploits of this renowned sailor, navigator,
explorer, and man of faith who first took to the sea at the age of 14
and have been and continue to be an inspiring (sic) to people around
the world; and,
Whereas, the Knights of Columbus is the -- the largest Catholic
fraternal organization in the world, known for its charities and deeds,
services to the community and the love of countries, selected this
brave and visionary man as their patron; and, whereas the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County Florida previously approved the
accepting of the donation on the 12th day of September 2000.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed this day, this 26th of March
Page 18
March 26, 2002
2002, that the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on
behalf of the citizens of Collier County, accept this gracious donation
of the Christopher's -- Christopher Columbus statue from the Knights
of Columbus.
Done on this order this 26th day of March 2002, and signed by
our chairman, James Coletta.
And, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second it. We -- all those in favor
indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Turn around and face the camera
there. Thank you, gentlemen. Do you want to say a couple words?
Thank you.
MR. BALZARANO: I'm Ralph Balzarano. I'm the grand
knight of St. Elizabeth Seton Council, and it's my honor to be here
today. And thank you, Commissioners and people of Collier County
and the government, for their cooperation in this project that we
undertook over three years ago.
My chairman here, Tony Beauvais, it was his dream four years
ago to begin a parade for Columbus Day in Golden Gate, which has
grown considerably, and the statue. We undertook this project in
keeping with our tradition of patriotism, which is a premise of the 4th
degree of the Knights of Columbus.
We are also proud to be a part of this community. Yesterday
was our 45th anniversary in Collier County of the Knights of
Columbus, the St. Elizabeth Seton Council. It was previously known
as the Naples Council, and it was the first one here. So thank you
very much.
Tony, would you like to thank them?
Page 19
March 26, 2002
MR. BEAUVAIS: On behalf of my brother knights and myself,
from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank you for the occasion
that you give us to place the statue at the community center for all the
citizens of Collier. If you visit it now, we have a plaque that tells you
all. Thank you so much.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. BALZARANO: One -- one other statement I'd like to
make: Amongst our members is our honorable chairman of the
commission, Jim Coletta, and we're proud to have you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we go to the service
awards.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as the board is making its way
down to the floor, as is custom, I'll take the opportunity to call up
your first three awardees this morning. All three are here to receive
five-year awards. They are Christopher Sottilaro from your water
treatment department, Aurelio Perez from parks and recreation, and
James Hendrixson from code enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, your final awardee this morning, we have the
privilege of recognizing a 20-year employee in Ervin Collins of your
transportation operations department.
(Applause.)
Item # 10A
Page 20
March 26, 2002
MR. JAMES DELONY APPOINTED TO THE POSITION OF
PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR- CONFIRMED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to jump straight to your
9:30 time-certain item. And I appreciate your taking this out of
order, but it's an order to get Mr. DeLony out to be able to do what
he's -- he's hopefully here to do, which is to find a permanent place to
live.
Mr. DeLoney has been selected after a fairly rigorous search for
the public utilities administrator's position. And as is custom and
required by ordinance, the board of county commissioners need to
confirm that selection.
Mr. DeLoney's resume is included as part of your agenda
package, and I -- I think if you had any opportunity to be able to look
over Mr. DeLoney's qualifications, you'll agree with me that he is
very well suited to step in and help us here in Collier County with our
water, wastewater, and solid waste departments. In particular, I'd like
to point out the fact that he has three masters' degrees, and he also has
a BS degree. And although he does come from Texas A&M
University, we won't hold that against him.
He is mostly recently the district engineer for the Army Corps of
Engineers at the Wilmington District, and he has a long and, I
believe, exemplary career serving in the U.S. Army and particularly
the Army Corps of Engineers. His engineering experience, in
particular, and his management skills, I think, make him a very good
candidate for the position. And without belaboring the point,
Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that the board confirm Mr. Deloney as your
next public utility --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
Page 21
March 26, 2002
motion that we confirm the appointment of Mr. --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle and a second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0.
Congratulations.
MR. DELONEY: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. I'm
excited about this opportunity, and I look forward to working with
each and every one of you in serving this great county. Thank you
again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd just like to say -- I was so
impressed with your resume, number one. I read it to my husband
because I thought, wow, did you see this? And, secondly, one of the
most important parts I saw in there was your team-building expertise,
and, boy, that's what we need. And we have such a great team
already, and they're just looking for a leader, so I'm glad you're here.
MR. DELONEY: Thank you, ma'am. Looking forward to it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got to be careful not to play it
up too big or the headhunters will be at his doorstep tomorrow.
MR. DELONEY: Again, thank each one of you.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION FROM THE MOST RECENT "IDEAS TEAM"
FOLLOWING THEIR RECENT VISIT TO SARASOTA COUNTY
Page 22
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll go back to our regular
agenda, now, which is a presentation, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. As the board members who have been
here for any time remember, one of the -- the things that we did when
I initially took the position was to create what we called ideas teams.
An idea team is a team of employees, and it's a cross-functional team
that we pulled employees from different divisions and different
departments. We put them on a team, and, frankly, we send them out
of town. We send them to another local jurisdiction that has got a
good reputation, either for just general local government or for a
particular type of service.
The first team that we created was an ideas team that was sent to
Martin County, who is particularly well known for some of their
environmental law and ordinances. They came back and made a
report to the board. And I think, as a result of their trip, we actually
instituted a number of different changes.
The second ideas team that we created we sent up to Sarasota
County. And I'd like to take the opportunity just to let them make a
very brief presentation to you of their trip there. And I think we will
also from this team see some things in your FY 0 budget -- FY '03
budget for you to consider.
MR. DUGAN: As always, best-laid plans. I can't see my screen
here and can't see what's up with that.
I apologize for the delay, but this is actually my very first
Powerpoint presentation --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay.
MR. OLLIFF: We did -- we didn't select the team members
based on their information technology.
MR. DUGAN: I actually -- actually -- for the record, my name
is Kevin Dugan. I'm with transportation engineering. And I've had
Page 23
March 26, 2002
the honor of being the team leader for the ideas team 2. As Tom said,
the ideas team is a concept that he initiated to help provide more
efficient, effective Collier County government by sending teams to
other counties to learn from their-- their operation. Ideas teams are
made up from staff, volunteers from varying and different
departments. The teams visit other county operations to evaluate
successful management approaches for possible application within
Collier County.
The ideas team 2 was a site to Sarasota County. Members
include Roy Anderson from utility engineering; Joe Cheatham from
wastewater; Denise Kirk, the recycling coordinator; and Barry
Williams, the social services director.
Now, our team visited Sarasota on January 15th and 16th of this
year. This was the third attempt we made to -- to visit. We had
Tropical Storm Gabrielle wiped out our first one. We had personal
problems with the second one. As is sort of evident here today, we've
only got two people from the team because the other two are out of
town. So trying to get the logistics of these teams together is
sometimes pretty extraordinary.
Sarasota Coun -- Sarasota County was selected because of the
similarities with Collier County. Sarasota is a little bit older. Their
history goes back quite a ways before Collier County, being that their
first settler showed up in the 1840s. Sarasota was incorporated as a
county when it split off from Manatee County in 1887. And,
Commissioner Coletta, you may appreciate this little similarity. And
the Sarasota post office opened in the area as the only store in 1878.
Charles Abbey was the storeowner and was named as the first
postmaster.
Now, on December 20th, 1884, members of the Sarasota
vigilante committee, which was formed as the Sarasota Political and
Social Club, shot and killed Mr. Abbey outside his post office. A
Page 24
March 26, 2002
little shades of Mr. Watson there.
Okay. Sarasota administration is -- is set up like a private
industry. They use a business-like approach to their operation. Jim
Lane, the county administrator, 4 years ago took 23 departments and
formed them into 8 business centers. Now, those business centers are
comparable to -- to our divisions.
The county administrator looks at -- at themes that he tries to get
across, you know, to his people. And I -- like last year's theme was
the concept of alignment. And what that meant was, you know, your
job and how it equates to other people's jobs. It gets over that what
they call occupational arrogance, which is that's not my job.
So from there the county is still very similar in the way they do
business, being that their executive committee, which is our
administrators, they meet with the county commissioners on a regular
basis through strategic planning sessions, retreats. And they come up
with their long-term plans, you know, for the -- the upcoming year.
They form their budgets pretty much the same way we do.
One thing that they go beyond when they identify the certain
strategic plans is they form what they call an Op/Ex team. Now, this
Op/Ex is an offshoot of the concept program that was pioneered by
the New York City Police Department and has carried through quite a
bit in the City of Baltimore.
And what the Op/Ex does is it provides accountability. Each
team, you know, takes the strategic initiative, and they work on it.
They have annual -- you know, bi-weekly meetings that are open to
the public. It's broadcast on the TV. And what it does, it brings
accountability to the managers.
Op/Ex has worked, you know, quite well in their situations.
And, again, you know, it's, you know, to implement what they call
the balance scorecard.
We split up and went out to -- to the various functions that --
Page 25
March 26, 2002
that we had signed for. And like our -- the wastewater director went
off with their wastewater director, looked at their operations, looked
at some of the things that they were doing right. One of the things
that may be useful in -- in this county is the vacuum sewer system,
Sarasota being an old county like us have to retrofit from septic tanks
in some area and have proved very economical for the -- for the
vacuum system.
Water department, one of the things we found out, Sarasota is
dependent on two other counties for -- for surface water. Only a
portion of their water is -- is groundwater. So they are in a -- in a
peculiar predicament because they're at the -- at the -- the mercy of
two other counties for water. So in the future they will be looking
for, you know, desalinization from the gulf.
Channel 19, very much like our own channel. I know Kady's
here watching me. Their operation -- they combine with the city.
They bonded; I believe it was, $1 million that they got from cable,
ComCast. And they built -- it was a rather impressive studio within
their administration building, and they hold their county commissions
meetings there. They hold the Op/Ex meetings. And it was -- it was
pretty impressive.
Emergency operations, they've got a setup that is quite unique.
Their administration building is an old telephone switching station, so
it's built to category -- hurricane category force standards. They say
when they lock that thing down; it's like a bunker.
Social services, they're very big on -- on using advisory
committees on how to direct, you know, some of their programs.
Recycling, they own their MRF, which is kind of unique,
because it was only about two miles away from the MRF that Waste
Management uses that we do our recycling through. There's a picture
of a MRF. And you can see that the only one that was smart enough
to bring a camera was our recycling coordinator.
Page 26
March 26, 2002
The employee development found it very similar to what we're
doing now. What they went through two years ago is what we're
doing, you know, right now as far as career development for the
employees. It was remarkable how -- how similar we were on that
point. They were big on using molecules up there, by the way, you
know, to show different organization.
Arts and development, they-- Sarasota passed their tax
referendum, a 2 percent tax referendum, based on the arts. When it
was first passed, 25 percent went to development of the arts, 25
percent to promotion, and 50 cent -- 50 percent to the beaches. In
1997 they increased it to the 3 percent. But the 1 percent increase, 70
percent went to beach and 30 percent to promotion, again, very
similar to what we have here, except we don't promote the arts too
well here.
And the natural resources side, in 1982 the county passed a bond
referendum for $18,500,000 to buy a reserve land that they were
going to use for a well field and an open space. Their water plant is -
- sits in the middle of this Mayberry preserve. Their well field is
there offering protection. There's nature trails to use as, you know,
passive recreation. And their landfill, their landfill is one of the
newest landfills to be permitted, you know, in the State of Florida.
And it sits in the middle of over 6,000 acres. And, again, the land
was used -- the surrounding land was used as mitigation for the
landfill but also acts as a buffer and as nature trails for -- for the
people of Sarasota. Whoops.
Now, I know Mr. Feder's going to want me to talk a little bit
about transportation since I'm in his department now. Most of what
we did was on the east side of Sarasota, and traffic moved very well.
The day we went down to the administration building at 7:30 in the
morning, it was a nightmare. It was six-lane roads that were just, you
know, clogged here to there and back again. So it was actually when
Page 27
March 26, 2002
we got back to -- you know, to Naples, it was like Dorothy said:
There's no place like home. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tom had his hand up first.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a comment. I had the
privilege a couple of years ago up at St. Pete arts festival, which I
believe was in that area, it is -- it is one of the grandest arts festivals
that I've ever been to. Even compelled me to buy a piece. And I
don't know if something that we might want to keep in mind is, as far
as the tourist tax, if we want to develop a change in the ordinance, if
possible, increasing the tax to create something like that as a
destination for Collier County.
MR. DUGAN: Well, especially during the -- you know, the
tourist season, winter season there in Sarasota, they have a whole
books of arts events up there, everything from, you know, street
shows to ballet to opera. It's pretty impressive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three questions: One, do they
have anything like our productivity committee?
MR. DUGAN: I believe so. And I think they worked that
through that Op/Ex team that they have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, with respect to
advisory committees, can you give me some comparison with respect
to the number that they might have compared with the number we
have?
MR. DUGAN: I couldn't -- you know, I couldn't give you a
factual number on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and I presume there's a city
government and a county government there. MR. DUGAN: Oh, yes, indeed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do they work together?
Page 28
March 26, 2002
MR. DUGAN: Well, I was told they work very well together.
They share a lot of resources back and forth. And -- well, I was told
that there was, you know, good cooperation between the -- well,
between the city of Sarasota and Sarasota County. There's two other
municipalities in Sarasota that -- You know, that are similar to what
we have here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I have one question: How do --
how does the county work with the private social service agencies
and public health?
MR. DUGAN: Barry Williams is the director of social services.
I'm sure he could answer that a lot better than I can.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. Barry
Williams, social service director. The question of how they work
with the social services agencies? Sarasota County, one of the things
that they do is they have grant made programs, and they provide to
social service agencies. They do something that I believe we did
several years ago. They're continuing to do that. They spend about
$7 million a year in these grant made programs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. DUGAN: Thanks, Barry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. DUGAN: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
Anything else?
Any other questions?
Thank you very much.
Item #6A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAl, TOPICS
Page 29
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're at the public comments on
general topics. Are there any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. You have three speakers. The first one
is Ty Agoston, and he will be followed by Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, Mr. Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: All I have to do is show up and the room
empties.
(Laughter.)
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ty, on that note, I had a
discussion with my son last night, and he has a high regards for your
letter writing to the Naples Daily News.
MR. AGOSTON: Well, thank you very much.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you want to keep that
high regard for my son's opinion, you wouldn't write anything about
his father.
MR. AGOSTON: I take threats very easily.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not a threat.
MR. AGOSTON: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ty
Agoston. And I finally got my corporate certificate from the state for
Tax Watch of Collier County, and I'm speaking for them.
I'd like to make three points, and one of them regards building
plans for Immokalee Road. It truly disturbs me when we are making
decisions at the convenience of the builder or the construction
industry and inconvenience your constituents and taxpayers. For us
to build Immokalee Road east going west and leaving a segment
open, thereby leading traffic into a very highly residential area,
thereby endangering -- I mean, Golden Gate Estates is loaded with
children. It's a family community. And for you to send extra traffic
away from Immokalee Road instead of keeping it on Immokalee
Road, which does not have an awful lot of families or does not have
any real development in the segment between Wilson and 951, I
Page 30
March 26, 2002
mean, to me, it's ludicrous.
And I am -- you know, one of the problems that I have always
had with government is that when you don't understand something,
you get suspicious. And there are an awful lot of people suspicious
of government. They feel -- and so do I -- that there is a hidden
agenda here somewhere that's not being said.
I think Larry Hannah is a reasonably intelligent reporter, and he
reported the issue of the electric grid that's in existence on Immokalee
Road, that section. And I don't feel that to be an influence and factor
over the health and welfare of children. And that's what we are --
have to talk about. On Golden Gate Boulevard that -- the school
buses are running, and there are children present all the time.
Now, I really beg you to reconsider the sequencing of the
building of Immokalee Road and allow it to travel from west to east
so as not to force traffic onto Golden Gate Boulevard. I don't believe
that it's a wise choice.
Two very brief points: Miss Fiala, I have read with interest your
remarks on affordable housing. I just love to see those million-dollar
towers being forced to accommodate affordable housing maybe on
the penthouse floor and have the lawn maintenance people live up
there. I think that's a great issue.
And the other issue regards to the article about Mr. Tarrant. I
am not a favorite -- I should say I'm not in favor of mitigation. I have
always believed that it's a form of blackmail. And while the
blackmail is in existence, I still would like to keep it in Collier
County. So if we are going to spend money on mitigation, I urge you
to keep it in Collier County. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Bob Krasowski, and he will be
followed by Jan Krasowski.
Page 31
March 26, 2002
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. So nice
to see you again. My name is Bob Krasowski, for the record, and I'm
here representing myself and Zero Waste Collier County, which is a
club of interested citizens, citizens that are interested in solid waste
issues.
Since this is the last commission meeting prior to the April 5th
deadline for the respondents of Collier County solid waste RFPs, I
wanted to address a few issues that still remain as outstanding
concerns to the Zero Waste Collier County initiative. Combining --
and I mentioned this before. We've taken issue and brought it before
you, and I wanted to remention it again today, that the three RFPs
that have been sent out, request for proposals that have been sent out,
were limited to collection and processing of organic waste,
processing and gasification of waste, and the conversion of wasted
cooking oils and grease-trap wastes into a fuel, which does -- sounds
very interesting, and we're -- we're supporting that. But by -- by
combining the collection and the organics, you kind of-- or the staff
has, in our opinion, limited the input of people that might only
process without the connection to collect, or it might only collect
without the ability to process. We've asked before that you look at
this and separate those two so that our initial -- what we initially
receive we can look at as various components of the waste process,
management process, and then after looking at the baseline proposals,
invite those people that we evaluate as having something to offer us,
invite them to -- to talk to each other about working together.
But the way it's set up now, the protection from collusion that
was understood to be a negative aspect when bidders got together
behind the scenes and negotiated out deals has been built in as an
okay thing to do in this process. So we see that when we receive
these re -- proposals, these responses to our RFPs, there are big holes
in the process that will not be addressed. And -- and so in the future
Page 32
March 26, 2002
we'll be coming back to you and asking you to get more specific and
to maybe some -- put out some more RFPs in regard to -- to handle
these holes in the -- in the process.
In particular, our -- for us to be aware and knowledgeable on
specifically collection is very important. In May you'll be receiving a
presentation from the staff on commercial recycling ordinance that
impacts all the businesses throughout the county and to understand
the efficiencies of collection or the method of collection. How it
applies to that is going to be very important in protecting the interest
of the business community in Collier County, as well as protecting
the residents because we all share the same landfill, and we've been
before you bringing up that point as a point of interest.
I happen to know and I was disappointed yesterday that a
vermiculture (sic) worm composting of organics and horticultural
company that was very interested in proposing on the RFPs will not
do so because there is no identification of organic waste, except for a
small amount that's in the process now. And it would have been nice,
maybe, if we got our organic -- excuse me -- our -- our commercial
collection ordinance down pat because there's a great possibility that
the organics in the commercial stream might want to be diverted.
And if that were to occur, then the worm people -- I call them
the worm people -- would have been able to propose, because they'd
know what volume, and they'd be aware that people would be
required to do something with that.
So we're putting the cart before the horse. I'll finish up now.
Was that the one-minute?
MS. FILSON: (Nodded head.)
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: About 30 seconds.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. I know, almost thirty seconds.
Okay.
Page 33
March 26, 2002
What we're looking to do with Zero Waste Collier County -- and
I must say, we've been enjoying our interaction with the staff,
Mr. Mudd; Mr. Yilmaz is a great asset to the county. What we would
like to see is some kind of situation develop to where some people
I've recently seen that are the -- the head of Zero Waste movement
nationally and the people with the most experience in solid waste
have spent their careers, 15, 20 years, in doing it. And we bring them
here to Collier County. We'd like your help in doing that. Maybe we
could work out a cooperative deal. We'd like you to encourage us to
continue to participate. We'd like to work together. Maybe we could
do something where you could bring them here. They could present
to you this incredible wealth of information they have, and then we
could as Zero Waste work in the community in conjunction with you
to set up a solid waste design charrette, not unsimilar to charrettes
that have been done on other issues, and then work with Malcolm
Pirnie, work with the staff, your consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, and
refine what we're doing. Thank you -- well, I don't like to thank you
for being up here. This is my right as an American, as a citizen. But
thank you for your attention to my comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can thank you for being up there.
Thank you, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your last public comment speaker will be Jan
Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to make a comment; our
timer isn't working today, at least the little one with the blinking
lights, so we substituted Sue Filson for the timer, and I'll assist her.
MS. KRASOWSKI: Good morning. Jan Krasowski
representing myself and Zero Waste Collier County.
Hello, Commissioner Coyle. I have not met you before, but
welcome. I'm here representing Zero Waste Collier County, and as
Page 34
March 26, 2002
we say, zero waste or darned close.
It has been a pleasure and an education to work with Mr. Mudd
and George Yilmaz, Tom Wides, and Malcolm Pirnie's
representatives on -- on Collier County's solid waste -- solid waste
system development and our residential collection ordinance.
However, your staff receives directions from you, and I ask that the
commission participate in the inclusion of the national zero waste
representation in the design of our common solid waste system and
that the county assume a cooperative position with Zero Waste
Collier County in the development of a comprehensive design
charrette for Collier County and specifically that Collier County
bring the speakers in and address the commission and then that zero
waste will set up the community meeting and compromise the design
charrette. Can I get a comment from anybody on the board on that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What would you like a comment on,
one more time?
MS. KRASOWSKI: Well, do you think it would be a good idea
to have a design charrette for the solid waste system, including
national Zero Waste representatives to come in and address the
commission?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think I'd like to hear staff come
back to us on it at some point in time and give us their
recommendation. I am not going to make a decision like that from
this point without any information at all to deal with. MS. KRASOWSKI: All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's always consideration. I
wish they'd take to it to staff and then have staff have come back to
US.
MS. KRASOWSKI: All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll do everything to give it due
consideration.
Page 35
March 26, 2002
MS. KRASOWSKI: That sounds good. Well, I'm going to
request right now that Zero Waste Collier County be put on the
agenda under public position for the next session.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's not-- not on today's
agenda. This is something you have to take up with staff. And at
that point in time we'll -- we'll address it. We're not going to be able
to get into a lengthy discussion and set an agenda item.
MS. KRASOWSKI: In two weeks, I mean, at the next
commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Would you get together with
staff on that?
MS. KRASOWSKI: All right. I'll do that. Thank you. And
please, please keep your eyes on the RFP situation. It could -- could
be very damaging to people if it's not done correctly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. KRASOWSKI: To let you know. And thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Miss Filson, does that do it with the
public speakers, and now we go to the petition?
Item #6B
DISCUSSION REGARDING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE
ORCHARDS AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD-
COMMISSIONER CARTER TO CONTACT PIPER'S GROVE RE
INTERCONNECT
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have one speaker for public petition,
and I'm not sure if he's the gentleman who has the public petition,
Mr. David Strouble.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I have the public petition signed
by the residents of The Orchards. I'm handing that over to -- part of
Page 36
March 26, 2002
the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. STROUBLE: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to ask you to identify
yourself in the mike.
MR. STROUBLE: Yes, sir. My name is David Strouble. I'm
here in place of Mr. Bob Gentile, our normal spokesman, who had a
family crisis this morning. At 7 a.m. I received a phone call to pinch-
hit. So if you'll bear with me and have patience, I'll try to get through
his notes, and we'll get this taken care of.
As you mentioned, we did turn in a petition this morning with
over 500 signatures. We were here last year. Bob was here. The
situation has not alleviated out there. It is still the same, if not worse,
due to the construction, the -- of the new city out there that's called
Village Walk, Island Walk, excuse me, Island Walk and beyond. The
amount of traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road has increased since last
year when Bob was there. We still don't have a light or any relief to
get out of our community.
He has here in front of me in his folder something that he would
like me to read to you. And with this, it says, Dear Commissioners,
the undersigned residents of The Orchards, a community located at
7857 Gardner Drive, adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road, petition
you, along with all the county commissioners, to address the
extremely serious vehicular access problems to and from our
community during substantial periods of the day. A lack of highway
capacity and the growth along Vanderbilt Beach Road, in our
opinion, has had an adverse impact on expeditious emergency
services response time.
In addition this, traffic situation has also seriously impacted the
residents' safety while entering and exiting our community. We have
our share of older drivers and first-time drivers. These residents are
Page 37
March 26, 2002
at risk the most. Our children's school buses deal with this condition
a number of times each day.
Approximately one year has passed since we last came before
you. Since that time a signal has been installed west of our location
at the Tiburon and Naples Walk shopping center intersection. The
impact on our community from the signal has been negligible. As for
the westbound flow of traffic, nothing has been really done at all.
The community is united in the position that this is
unacceptable. We cannot understand, as we begin the 21st century,
that this problem is insurmountable. Regardless of whether the exact
numbers of vehicles or statistics utilized for traffic warrant studies
meet the established criteria, there comes a time when good old
common sense should come into play.
Once again, we come before the board seeking your intervention
in this matter. We implore you to help us. Do not send us away
empty-handed again. Your intervention today may help avoid serious
injury or loss of life, either by vehicular accidents or emergency
services responding to our calls for assistance.
There have been a number of vehicle accidents, incidents these
last months, along with the countless calls for emergency medical
services. Therefore, we request a signal be placed at the entrance to
our community. If this request is again denied, then you realize you
leave us all at the risk of our fate to our well being trying to exit and
enter our community. Please do not send us away again without any
help. This is not a matter of convenience. This condition exists, and
it is a reality to anyone who travels in the area and is well aware of.
We need your help. Your attention to this matter is anxiously
awaited, and I will assure you I -- it will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
That's the letter that Bob asked me to read to you folks. Now,
before I came up here this morning, he also called the sheriff's
Page 38
March 26, 2002
department and got accident reports. I stopped on my way up here
this morning, and from April 1st of 2001 through March of-- 21st of
2002, there were reported 284 traffic-related calls on Vanderbilt
Beach Road between Tiburon and 1-75.
Now, I looked through these while I was setting back here, and,
of course, not all of these are accidents. We have normal traffic
stops, suspicious vehicles, but there are -- I counted in here, like, 26
accidents. And many of these accidents, I've noticed, are 3 vehicles,
up to 12 and 13 -- 15 on this one of accidents on our road. And that's
one reason, I believe, is because of-- normally -- well, not so much
traffic, but it's chain-reaction accidents.
So you can see by that that there is many, many times that there
are so many cars on this road that I noticed this morning getting out.
It was difficult. Fortunately, I do not have to go out every morning to
go to work here. Many of our people do, and I can't imagine the
frustration they start their day with by having to leave our community
in stress before they even get on the road, because it does take a
while, especially if you're the tenth car to get out. And if you're the
first car, you feel unduly pressured to either make a move unsafely to
enter the traffic.
And one thing about our road, being it's only two lanes, is -- I
do it myself, and I've noticed many other people in our community
do. We do not have a median. We have two lanes, and then there is
a small section that is diagonally yellow line that is basically illegal
to get into. That's our safe zone, my safe zone. There's no traffic
coming from the west to the east. It's coming from the east to the
west. So when I have an opportunity, I jump into that safe zone, be it
illegal or not, and I notice many other people do. But that is really
not what we should have to do.
As far as widening of our road, which we do hope, okay, that we
will get a light at that time, that is maybe -- maybe the second quarter
Page 39
March 26, 2002
of next year, which would put it a year from now, that they may start
that road. If the things continue to change, such as right-of-ways and
different things that they're -- that change there, God knows when
we'll get our road.
Livingston is down the road. We have no idea when that may be
up in our area, and they will, they say, put a light at Livingston. But
that is still over a quarter of a mile away from us.
So what you have here is a situation of lights at both ends of our
community, but it really gives us no relief because by the time the
lights change, the people on Vanderbilt Beach Road -- and I'm sure
many of you people out here and I know you folks up there have
probably traveled the road, which is a 45-mile-an-hour speed limit.
As you-all well know that 45 down here is not 45. It can be
anywhere from 55 to 60 depending on who's behind the wheel. It
makes it very, very difficult to get out there, very unsafe.
And I'm here in Bob's place for our community to tell you that
we definitely need something there. If it's just a temporary light and
they can move it down to Livingston when they do Livingston would
be fine with me, but we would get some temporary relief.
I've driven by North Point and Vanderbilt Beach Road going
toward Vanderbilt Beach. That is the light that has been installed
adjacent to Pelican Bay, Bay Colony and The Ambiance. It's a great
addition. I'm happy they have that. We would like to have the same
thing.
The light there -- I've timed it -- I believe is a 15-second red
light, east and west for Vanderbilt. What that light does -- and I have
come the other way off North Point. It gives you the opportunity to
enter safely into the traffic flow. That's all we want. That's what
we're asking for. And, really, we would like your indulgence in this
matter and give it some consideration. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner -- Commissioner
Page 40
March 26, 2002
Henning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Henning --
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, sir, before you leave --
Tom Henning here -- how many -- as far as accidents, looking
through that report, how many of those deal directly with the
residents in The Orchards?
MR. STROUBLE: That's a good question. That's something I
haven't looked at.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. Because that -- the
segment that you're looking at, the accidents --.
MR. STROUBLE: Well, they don't have anything here per Se
as Orchards residents. You're referring to the name. They have
addresses where these accidents happens, Rose Road, Rose Road,
which is our road going up, Rose Road, Rose Road, one, two, three,
four, five, six --
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe we could get together
later on, and we could talk about that.
MR. STROUBLE: Sure. I would appreciate that, because it is a
problem, and I know you're all well aware of many other problems in
this community and city, but this is our problem. I know everybody
out here has a problem, but today this is my problem.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, sir, we want to address
your -- your needs. We really do. But putting a traffic light maybe is
not the -- the best solution. So possibly there's some other solutions
that we can look at. And I know that --.
MR. STROUBLE: I'll be glad to talk to you about it.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. STROUBLE: Sorry.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING:
One minute, please.
The original PUD, the Piper's
Grove is a part of that -- that PUD. What -- have you made any
efforts to talk to your neighbors there as far as interconnectivity so
Page 41
March 26, 2002
you could get to Airport Road, because there is a traffic light there?
MR. STROUBLE: I wish I had a good answer for you. But
since -- like I say, I just got this information at 7:20 this morning. I
really didn't get an opportunity to discuss that with Bob, although we
have discussed other items. That is one that we have not discussed.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Maybe that -- because
that will get you closer to your destination. Let me talk to those folks
over at the -- the manager over at Piper's Grove and see if that is a --.
MR. STROUBLE: The only thing Piper's Grove has is a new
light on Airport-Pulling Road across from Emerald Lakes. So Piper's
Grove actually has two ways of egress. One of them is with a traffic
light now on Airport-Pulling Road. So I don't think you'll get the
response that you're getting from us from the people of Piper's Grove
now because they have what we would like to have. So once you get
something, you don't -- you're not as adamant about it as when you
don't have it. Like the kid who wants a new bike, he wants that bike
until he gets it. Then he lets you alone. We prefer not to come back
next year.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. STROUBLE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, this is a transition
community, coming into District 2 from District 3. I have had one
short briefing by transportation on the situation. Does transportation
want to comment on this morning, or should we send it to them to
come back later and advise us of that situation, because as I
understand it, there is an internal community discussion that could
take place that could get you out to Airport Road? But that becomes
between communities, is not something that the county would not get
involved in. Transportation, I do need to get a brief input from them
to see whether or not we can go forward and do anything with the
situation. I -- I empathize with the situation. But transportation may
Page 42
March 26, 2002
have some other insights so we don't spin our wheels here.
MR. OLLIFF: In essence, I'll save Bob the trip to the
microphone. And I can tell you that we've recently done some
warrant studies there and -- and they haven't yet met the warrants that
would justify a signal. We had hoped that the light at the intersection
that was referenced at Tiburon in the shopping center to the east
would have provided some gaps in the traffic to be able to allow the
traffic to exit The Orchards. It in all honesty hasn't provided as much
in the way of gaps as we would hope. Commissioner Henning does
have a good suggestion working with Piper's Grove. That's one of
those interconnectivity opportunities that the county probably let go
years ago when they split that PUD up. But there is an opportunity
there to try and generate some interconnectivity between The
Orchards and Piper's Grove to get access to that light on Airport
Road.
And, in addition, eventually the -- the four- and six-laning of
Vanderbilt Beach Road will provide some additional opportunities, as
well as the installation of some additional lights at Livingston.
So, obviously, from a transportation standpoint, we are going to
try and -- and resist putting any lights up on your major arterial
roadways that don't meet the warrants because of the -- the impact
that it has on the arterial. But we are more than willing to sit down
and try to work on some other options that are available, including
perhaps some interconnectivity options.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know that community
borders on the future of Livingston. That is going to come on line in
the next couple of years.
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a possibility that
transportation could look at opportunities for a -- another exit off of
Page 43
March 26, 2002
that?
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, if you don't mind, I'll
contact the Piper's Grove people over there and see what the
possibilities of that -- that interconnection over there. Commissioner
Carter, would you--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, since it's in District 2, I
feel it's probably my responsibility to do that. VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you have a file on that you
want to pass over to me --
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- I'll be happy to do that.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll be happy --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll contact both of the
associations, Piper's Grove and the other, to see if there's any interest,
along with the continuing studies by the transportation department. I
think everybody here empathizes with the situation. MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's the best, I think; we can
do at this point.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you,
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you both. What we're going
to do, gentlemen, is we're going to take a five-minute break at this
time, and then we're going to come back, and the next item's going to
be for Henderson Creek.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8B
Page 44
March 26, 2002
ORD. 2002-15 RE PETITION PUDZ-2002-AR- 1978, GATEWAY
SHOPPES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD YOVANOVICH
OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, AND WARNE
ARNOLD OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, RE A
REZONE FROM "RSF-3" TO "PUD" KNOWN AS HENDERSON
CREEK PUD, ALLOWING 500 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS AND REQUESTING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BONUS DENSITY AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL, ONE-HALF MILE EAST OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD - CONTINUED UNTIL LATER IN THE
MEETING
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item is the advertised public
hearing, Item 8 B. And we're going to -- it's going to require anyone
that wishes to speak or participate to stand up to be sworn in. (The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And now for the
disclosures on the part of the commissioners starting off with
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have met with the petitioner
and staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, have I met with people and
talked with people and received e-mails. I'll try and note all of them.
I've spoken with Marjorie Student and Pat White from our attorney's
office. The East Naples Civic Association I've spoken with a number
of times. I've spoken with residents of Graystone, of Holiday Manor,
and of Eagle Creek. I've spoken to the Naples Daily News,
obviously, and you've seen that; the sheriff's office, code
enforcement. I've received e-mails, phone calls, letters. I've spoken
Page 45
March 26, 2002
to the developer and their representatives, and I've spoken to staff. I
think that's about everybody.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That -- that covers it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Did you miss anybody in Collier
County is what I want to know?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not many.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, would you
like to add like the yellow pages from the telephone book to that one?
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not quite, Commissioner. I --
I did speak to the petitioner about five weeks ago, and I have spoken
to staff about it. And all of my electronic correspondence and
miscellaneous correspondence on this issue is in the folder.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met briefly with the
petitioner and his representatives. I have met with three residents in
the area. And I have received numerous e-mails, which are in the
file.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have met with representatives
from East Naples Civic Association, the petitioner, his
representatives, and I received numerous e-mails, which are here in
my file.
Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows with current planning staff.
I'm presenting Petition PUDZ -02-AR-1978. The petitioner is
requesting the Board of County Commissioners to consider an
application to rezone the subject 45-acre site from the RSF-3 zoning
district to a planned-unit development to be known as Henderson
Creek PUD.
Under the current RSF-3 zoning, this could result in 137
dwelling units on the subject site. And, as you can see on the
Page 46
March 26, 2002
visualizer, the site is located on the south side of U.S. 41. It's on the
west side of Henderson Creek, and it's approximately a half-mile east
of County Road 951 or Collier Boulevard. I have an aerial
photograph of the area.
As you can see, the site is north of an existing mobile home
park. On the east side of Henderson Creek there's also another
residential mobile home travel trailer park. To the north is vacant
agricultural land and some --
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Excuse me, Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we get this on the
commissioners' monitor? Somehow it's not coming up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And while you're trying to do that,
can I ask you a question? You're saying 137. That doesn't reflect in
our backup work here. Our backup work says 500.
MR. BELLOWS: That's under the current RSF-3 zoning. If
they were to develop under the current zoning, the property is entirely
zoned RSF-3 or almost entirely RSF-3. They could develop which --
based on 45 acres, end up with being 137 units approximately. It
could be less based on environmentally sensitive areas. But
generally, based on the total acres you can result in about 137 units.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But that doesn't refer to
what we're discussing here; is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. What they're proposing is a
planned unit development allowing 500 affordable housing units. All
100 -- or 100 percent would be affordable housing. That was original
application, as submitted to staff. The petitioner has met with the
property owners within the area. They've held their public
information meetings as required by the Land Development Code.
They held their first public information meeting on December 3rd,
2001. During that meeting they presented their petition to the area
Page 47
March 26, 2002
residents and informed them that they were proposing 500 units.
That would be affordable housing.
They also showed plans for proposed comprehensive plan or a
comprehensive plan amendment that has been in the works and is
pending final ratification.
The reason this petition came before the -- in this format is that
due to state funding requirements of an affordable housing
component was -- would be in March or April. They needed to get
planning commission and board dates in March. So we broke up
the -- the petitioner decided to break up the project and submit the
affordable housing component first. And then after ratification of the
comprehensive plan amendment, they'd come back and amend this
project and incorporate it with adjacent commercial-zoned properties
and -- and develop a PUD that is consistent with their comprehensive
plan amendment.
At the present time this petition is consistent with the current
Growth Management Plan, and I have the future land use map here to
show you. This basically shows this site located in the -- the hashed -
- dashed-line area. It's outside the activity center. It's in the urban
coastal fringe, and this allows for a density of 4 units per acre, minus
1 for being in a traffic congestion zone. They are eligible for 8
additional dwelling units through the affordable housing density
bonus agreement for a total of 11 units per acre. This petition is
consistent with those guidelines and density as currently proposed.
The -- staff has done a consistency analysis of the development
standards within the PUD for the various housing types of proposed,
and they are generally consistent with the Land Development Code
and with the other PUDs in the area for this type of housing.
I have the master plan that shows that the primary access would
be off of U.S. 41. The first phase of development would be in that
westerly tract. They have plans for future development here
Page 48
March 26, 2002
(indicating) that they would come in after their comprehensive plan
amendment is adopted, and they'll develop this site. At that time
they'll submit an environmental impact statement for that property
that has some wetlands in it, and that will go before the
Environmental Advisory Council for review and consideration, along
with their other parts of the project that are not associated with this
petition today.
The comprehensive planning staff has determined this project as
submitted is consistent with those plans. The traffic impact statement
that was submitted indicates that the project will generate
approximately 3,131 trips on a weekday and 252 a.m. peak-hour trips
and 289 peak-hour trips. The project will have a significant impact
on U.S. 41 from the intersection of Collier Boulevard t O the site
entrance. But the total trips will not adversely affect the roadway
level of service.
The project will not have a significant impact on the remainder
of the roads within the radius of development influence. So,
therefore, this project, when you add the trips to the roadway, will not
lower the level of service below the current adopted standard.
We have transportation planning director here, Dawn Wolfe, to
go into more detail or specific questions you have on traffic. I know
that many of the residents who have sent me e-mails and calls, that
was one of their primary concerns of traffic. And I'd be happy, if you
would like, to ask -- start asking traffic questions now. You can start
addressing those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I was wondering,
being that this is called a traffic-congested area --. MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and so they reduced the number
of homes that were allowed per acre because of the high congested
Page 49
March 26, 2002
area, yet they add eight more because it's affordable housing. So now
instead of 3 you have 11 per acre. How does that not impact U.S. 41,
which, by the way, is a two-lane highway, and there's no schedule for
it to be widened?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. From a planning standpoint, that
dwelling unit per acre subtracted from their total eligible density that
they request, therefore, they're not getting 12 units per acre that they
might have been eligible to receive if it wasn't in a traffic congestion
zone. So we're reducing the overall density that the site is eligible to
receive because of that.
Now, there's -- that's the reason -- there's another factor
involved, the perceived traffic congestion versus our adopted level-
of-service standards. There is definitely going to be a perceived
impact that may -- some may consider adverse to the area, but we
have adopted level of services that are in the comprehensive plan, our
Growth Management Plan, and that's what staff uses to guide its
review and -- and recommendations, based on those adopted
standards in the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, Ray, one of the comments that
I've been hearing from people right next door in -- in Graystone
Mobile Home Park is that -- and this is a retirement community --.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Graystone Mobile Home Park.
At this point -- right next door they can't get out of their park because
of the high traffic congested area, and now we're going to add, say,
two cars per unit, another thousand cars into that area, plus we're not
taking into consideration, also, right across the street the commercial
aspect of this being built as we speak. I -- I'm very concerned about
that. I'm very concerned, not only that, but on 951 you've got the
evacuation route that enters into this. And -- and I want to tell you, I
get backed up in that 951 traffic. I'm on Marco at least a couple days
Page 50
March 26, 2002
a week, and trying to get back off Marco, I'm-- I'm stuck in traffic all
the way to the bridge just trying to get through the light to turn left.
It -- and I can't see how it cannot impact traffic.
MR. BELLOWS: I drive that way a lot, too, on my site visits
and have caught myself in some traffic jams. But, like I'm saying, we
have adopted standards, and that's what staff is constrained to review
the projects by.
I do have -- I'd like to defer to Dawn Wolfe for the specific
analysis of the -- of this project, and I think she could better answer
your questions.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, while she's
coming up, for the people with cell phones, please turn those off
because it's very disruptive in a meeting. And if you got -- put them
on silent mode, then you can go in the hall, have your conversation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
MS. WOLFE: Good morning. Dawn Wolfe, transportation
planning department director, for the record. I've not been sworn. I
apologize.
(The oath was administered.)
MS. WOLFE: The -- the issue of whether or not they will have
an impact on the roadways is a good one. Yes, they will have an
impact on the roadways. However, we have measures within the
comprehensive plan, the Growth Management Plan that specify we
are to look at what is significant. And the specific areas that we have
also looked at and said are coming up on potential deficiencies on
State Road 951, Collier Boulevard, from 41 down to Manatee Road,
are outside their area of significance. So we have to look at that as
part of the measures in regards to determining whether or not they are
consistent or are they not consistent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, Dawn, aren't these the same
measures that we have found to be, for lack of a better word, broken
Page 51
March 26, 2002
and we're going to be fixing them in the Land Development Code?
And-- and this is one of the problems we're now addressing is
because these are unrealistic, and they don't take into consideration
the surrounding areas. I realize they're the measurements that are in -
- in force, but they don't work.
MS. WOLFE: And yes, ma'am, we are in the process --
(Applause.)
MS. WOLFE: And it is an issue that has been brought up many
times. However, we still stand in a position of making
determinations of compliance based on the criteria currently in the
comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code, and that's
where staff's recommendations in regard to this specific application
before you today has come from.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we able to put this aside until
we have those Land Development Code changes in place?
MS. WOLFE: That's something I think our legal counsel would
have to address.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. If there were a moratorium in place that would
allow the net development orders be issued pending completion of
either comp. plan amendments or LDC, that would be appropriate.
Otherwise it would not be appropriate. Or I guess, I should say, if
you were to do that, you would run the risk of a lawsuit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just -- just two -- two questions.
One, Marjorie, are you saying that a moratorium would have to be in
effect at the present time before this petition were submitted for that
to be--
MS. STUDENT: Well, it would depend upon if there were a
moratorium. It would depend upon the wording of the moratorium
and what the exemptions were and so forth, if there were one. But
Page 52
March 26, 2002
there is -- there is not. And I guess, as I said, the best thing to say is,
it's up to the commission, but you run the risk of a lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. My second question to
Dawn is a follow-on to the question that was asked by Commissioner
Fiala. The traffic study and the traffic impact of this particular
development is -- is not -- or is taken into consideration with respect
to all other development that has been approved, and it is expected to
come on line soon?
MS. WOLFE: In general terms, yes, by virtue of the fact that
we look at what the current traffic is. We look at growth in regards to
the trends in the area. The evaluation which is contained in your staff
summary is inclusive of a high rate of growth, an 8 percent general
rate of growth on the trap -- on the traffic volumes for the segments
that are contained in your evaluation. So that is a relatively high rate
of growth on these roadways.
And, as, perhaps, the additional parcels in regards to the
comprehensive plan amendment, which would require a PUD
amendment for this parcel, they would have to look at everything
cumulatively. So we are looking at having everyone make sure that
cumulative impact for sufficient rates of increase in the background
traffic are taken into consideration on all applications at this point in
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thanks. That -- that led me
to another question. I'm sorry. This is the big issue for me, so that's
why I'm lingering here. So that means that this particular PUD right
now is just requesting the 500 units, but they want to come back and
then put in commercial. And yet they wanted to have big box
commercial too, big box commercials, which generate an extreme
amount of travel, and they want to put that in the same area on the
same roads that are already deficient and-- and have no plans to be
Page 53
March 26, 2002
widened. I don't think they can have both.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I-- I-- I-- if I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One at a time. Hold on now, if I
may. Just one thing I wanted to understand, today's PUD, are we
addressing the commercial?
MS. WOLFE: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I raise that question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think it's -- it's appropriate
that we focus only on what is before us. But in all fairness to the
petitioner and the residents, I think it is important for them to know at
least my position. And -- and my position is that there could be no
commercial development that goes in there until the -- that segment
of 951 south of 41 is improved to handle the -- the necessary traffic.
So -- so I would agree with Commissioner Fiala, although it is not on
the agenda today, the commercial development I don't see happening
until that road is improved. That's my personal opinion. I'm stating it
merely for the record so the petitioner will know that -- that there is
no -- should be no expectation that the commission would -- would
proceed with approval of a -- of a commercial development.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so that would mean, then,
when the -- when the Growth Management Plan comes back for
approval, we would deny, is that right, because that approval is based
on the commercial?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that -- that would be my
position only. I mean, the other commissioners would have to speak
for themselves.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm certainly along with you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Again, I don't like to mix apples
Page 54
March 26, 2002
and oranges. I think we consider what's being asked to be done
today. The other has to come back through the process. And if roads
are widened, as Commissioner Coyle is saying, and can
accommodate, that's one issue.
If they are not, then that's another issue. But I want to stay with
what's being asked to be done today and can we or can we not do
what's being asked. And I would prefer to keep that discussion on
that basis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Carter, the reason I
brought up the commercial in the first place was because, according
to our paperwork here or the backup and some of the interviews that
I've had, it said that the reason this was being planned is because,
actually, the developer wanted to develop the commercial. That's all
he's interested in. He's selling off the other portion. So as long as
that's what he's going for in the first place, we might as well address
it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think what you're trying
to do is make a judgment on something that hasn't happened yet.
And what that developer does with his land, he has personal property
rights. And all I want to do is deal with the issue today, because if, in
effect, this can be accomplished, that's a decision in front of this
board. If you come back and you want -- what you want to do in the
future is not in front of me today, and I will deal with that when it
comes. And if the infrastructure can handle it, that is one issue. If it
can't, that's another issue. But I want to stay with what we can do or
not do today. That's a clarification that I need.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any more questions of Miss
Wolfe?
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, if I might just add for
clarification, I -- on the one hand I see the board members are trying
to look at the big picture here, to their credit. On the other hand, I
Page 55
March 26, 2002
also agree with Mr. Carter that we -- we owe the applicants and
everyone else involved in this process procedural due process in
following the central occurrence of law. But that requires, as
Mr. Carter indicated basically, although we are aware of a bigger
picture, we must make our decision today based on the criteria that
the code provides for based on the item before us today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest we go ahead and hear
from the petitioner, and then we can ask the petitioner any questions
that he might -- the board might have.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go right to the mike.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Rich
Yovanovich. This item was moved up, so none of us were in the
room during the swearing-in process. So you probably want to swear
in my entire team of consultants and people who will speak. Do you
want to do that just once or one time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's get it over with.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Please continue.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. For the record, again, Rich
Yovanovich representing the petitioner.
With me today to address several issues that were raised and
were raised at the planning commission are Wayne Arnold who's the
planner on the project, Grady Minor who is the engineer on the
project. Also with me is Pat Law who is the prospective purchaser of
the property, the affordable housing project, because that is correct.
The affordable housing project is part of an overall project. And my
clients, who are also here, Bob Worsler (phonetic) and Bill Schrage,
are commercial developers. They are no different than any other
developer in Collier County where they get the land ready for
Page 56
March 26, 2002
development, and they do what they do, and they sell off the portion
that they don't do.
I do want to point out that this was probably the first example of
inclusionary zoning to come before you. At some point we have
started with a comprehensive plan process. That comprehensive plan
process talks about an 85-acre parcel. The -- approximately 40 acres
which fronts 951, which we are not here to discuss today, is the
commercial project. The back 45 acres is the residential project we're
bringing here today.
What the commission needs to recall or what I'd like the
commission to recall is that this process started quite awhile back.
There has been several hearings on the overall concept through the
comprehensive plan process. The concept has been commercial,
approximately 325,000 square feet on 40 acres, residential on the
back with a minimum requirement of 200 affordable housing units
with a maximum density of 500 units. This is what the
comprehensive plan process has always been.
We've had meetings with the neighbors, including Eagle Creek,
Holiday Manor, both at the comprehensive plan stage and with
Holiday Manor more specifically at the zoning stage with the
neighborhood meetings.
And also I want you to under -- to know and the record to reflect
is that when we mailed out our notices for the public information
meetings on the zoning, we measured the 500 feet from the entire
project, which meant that we measured the 500 feet from 951 where
the commercial property is so that we made sure we mailed notices
into Eagle Creek. And people in Eagle Creek were noticed of the
neighborhood meeting for our residential zoning, even though it is
more than 500 feet from our zoning request. So we have gone above
and beyond to make sure that people know what we are doing.
Now, we went through the planning commission hearing. The
Page 57
March 26, 2002
planning commissioners recommended approval 4 to 3 on our project
for 500 units. We understood the intent of the planning
commissioners to be that they preferred us to phase this project,
although the motion probably wasn't clear that that's what they said.
We have proposed a phased project. Before you today we are
requesting Phase 1 -- we are requesting Phase 1, which is this parcel
(indicating) of the two residential parcels. We are requesting 224
apartment units in Phase 1. We will come back for Phase 2, but I'm
going to put on the record today what we will be requesting for Phase
2 of the residential project. And we are willing to take the risk that
we can deliver what we're going to request. We are going to request
in Phase 2 only 136 units, which brings the density request down
from 500 to 360. And it will be a for-sale product, meaning it will be
owner occupied. You get to buy your first home.
We have also committed that we will not do your typical
condominium building that is 12, 16 units. We're agreeing that there
will be no more than four units per building. Now, that doesn't mean
we won't have stand-alone single family. It doesn't mean we won't
have two-unit buildings, three-unit buildings, or four-unit buildings.
But we will come back with a breakdown exactly of what we will
bring to you in a future phase.
So the way we view this is today the county commission is
approving the multifamily so we can stay in the process to get tax
credits to build the apartment complex. We will then come on the
second phase and do the for-sale product. And if we can't deliver
that, that land will remain vacant so if we can't deliver it you end up
with an overall project density of five units per acre. If we do deliver
it, you get an overall project density of eight units an acre. In any
event, we have reduced our request to address concerns that the
Planning Commission raised by neighbors about density.
Now, I will tell you that we are fairly confident we can deliver
Page 58
March 26, 2002
the for-sale product because my client's not going to leave
approximately $2 million worth of land value on the table, but they're
willing to take that risk for Phase 2 of the residential.
Now, what that does -- and I -- I would assume that Ms. Wolfe
will nod her head yes or come to the podium and say when we're only
asking for 224 units versus 500 units at this time, that's a dramatic
reduction of traffic on U.S. 41. So we have reduced that request, and
we know that we have to come back, and we run the risk that traffic
is more congested later on and on Phase 2 we may not get an
approval on Phase 2. And we're willing to take that risk, as I've said.
Also, we have committed in the PUD document to a solid wall
running from 951 to the creek, and that was, after we've had meetings
with the -- with the residents of Holiday Manor and they had security
concerns. So we've agreed to that solid wall to address their security
concerns. That would be constructed at the beginning of the project,
not piecemeal.
We have also committed to two-story buildings so that you
won't have any three-story apartment buildings, which we believe --
and Mr. Law will be able to tell you is there are sometimes in three-
story buildings kids will be kids, and they pull fire alarms, and
usually they're false fire alarms. And with two-story buildings there
won't be those fire alarms and those attractive nuisances that the kids
will pull. So we will not have to worry about those false fire alarms
which hopefully will address some concerns we heard that the fire
department is overtaxed because of false fire alarms.
The projects contain live-on managers. They have -- they, also,
just so as a point of information, have police officers that are given
units to live with within the community to also address concerns
regarding security and crime. Those are standard provisions that
occur today and will continue on this project.
In dealing with the -- this particular project -- and Mr. Arnold
Page 59
March 26, 2002
will get into it in a little bit greater detail as to the layout of the
property -- the developer of this project or the purchaser, they've
done two projects in Collier County. They've done Whistler's Cove,
and they've done Whistler's Green. Whistler's Cove is a three-story
project that we will show you why it ended up being a three-story
project because of wetland issues that forced us into a greater net
density versus gross density. We don't have those issues on this
project, and we didn't have those issues in Whistler's Green. So the
gross density and the net density will be the same.
The net density in Whistler's Cove, it appears more dense, even
though the gross density is the same. Because of the wetland issues,
they had to go three stories, and that led to some of the issues that
we're hearing concerns about -- we have committed that there will be
no three-story project -- three-story buildings in this project.
Your planning staff, who are experts, have determined that this
project is compatible. Mr. Arnold has determined that this project is
compatible. Your traffic expert has testified that we meet all of the
requirements under the comprehensive plan. And -- and I want to
point out in the executive summary that with our project and the
assumption of background traffic being added, you're talking about
7800 average daily trips for a road that is designed to accommodate
9400 average daily trips. So I -- as I understand what we want to be
the checkbook analysis, you can write the check on this project, and
you will be able to cash the check because there is more than enough
available trips on that road to accommodate this project.
So what we would hope is that the planning commissioners will
listen to the testimony, consider the changes we have made in the
phasing of the project, consider the fact that this is a unique, an
untried project in Collier County. It's a combination of multifamily
and for owner, rental and for owner.
The only way to do both is to use one, the multifamily, to
Page 60
March 26, 2002
subsidize the other, which is the owner occupied. And the reason that
occurs is because, as everybody knows in Collier County, land is
expensive. In order to bring in a project that is in the $ ! 30,000 range
for that starter home, you've got to bring the land costs down to make
that available. We need the rental portion to bring the land costs
down on the single-family portion or the for-owner -- for-sale product
to make this happen.
You've asked on many occasions, find a way. How do we --
how do we get both? How do we get some owner-occupied units?
We brought a product that I think accomplishes that. And we hope
that the commission will endorse this project, vote for this project,
embrace the concept, much as the Collier County, slash, City of
Naples Affordable Housing Commission did. I believe a letter was
delivered to the chairman and-- and others on the commission that
endorsed the concept of our project and the location of our project.
And we hope that this will be seen as the first of many projects that
can make this concept work and meet the need that all of Collier
County recognizes. The need is in every commission district. There
is a future need in every commission district. And we hope that this
project will be approved by the board of county commissioners. And
Mr. Arnold will take you through--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you do that-- .
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I'd like you to stay there just for a
moment and address some questions. Also, too, we're going to have
a -- 11:30 we're going to have to break and put a bookmarker into this
and come back to it later.
Commissioner Fiala, you have some questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to say I think it's nice
that the City of Naples wrote that letter. But didn't they write that
letter because right now they don't have to -- they trade off their
Page 61
March 26, 2002
affordable housing into Collier County rather than keep it in the City
of Naples because their land values are too high? So I'm sure that
they would like to see that located here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, the letter was not from the
City of Naples. It was from a commission that was appointed by the
Board of County Commissioners as well. So it was a letter from the
Affordable Housing Commission that is -- has county appointments.
So it was a joint commission, both the county and the city.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can you clarify that for me now?
Now, is that different from your committee, Commissioner Fiala,
which you chair?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. My committee is the Work-
Force Housing Task Force, and our goals are to -- to create policies
and procedures whereby we can distribute work-force housing
throughout the entire county where we can provide incentives for
developers (cell phone rang) and where -- where we can address the -
- the bottom line which is how they figure out the costs for rental
units. Right now that's -- that's figured at total income, which is very
skewed here in Collier County. We're hoping to -- to realign that to
be -- the rental units to be figured on cost -- on total wage rather than
total income. There's a vast difference.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: With all due respect,
Commissioner, I understand all that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: This is not -- did you present this
project to the affordable housing committee?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner Carter, Cormack Giblin from the
housing department for the record.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MR. GIBLIN: Collier County has, in a sense, two affordable
housing commissions. One is called the Joint City of Naples/Collier
Page 62
March 26, 2002
County Affordable Housing Commission, and that is the group that
the developer made a presentation to. The other is the Horizon
Committee called the Work-Force Housing Committee, the one that
Commissioner Fiala sits on as well.
presentation from this developer.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
That commission has not seen a
Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Young-- Yovanovich, can
you refresh my memory with respect to the phases? Which phase is
going first? The single-family portion or the -- the rental portion?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Coyle, it's the rental
portion that's going first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The second phase, the for sale, is what
we have to come back to you for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the total density in Phase 1
is how much?
MR. YOVANOVICH: 224.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 224. And you acknowledge that if
we approve this in phases, we're approving only the 224 units and
that any additional units to be requested are going to be subject to
concerns about traffic?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. That-- we understand that
we have to come back for the other 136 units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're dealing only with 224
units.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct. And we under-- and I
appreciate the pointing out of the commercial issues. We have fully
expected, when we were going through the comp. plan process, that
we were going to be probably the parties that solve the traffic issue at
the intersection. We knew we were going to have to expend funds to
Page 63
March 26, 2002
re -- to resolve those intersection issues. That is in our proforma. We
expect to do that, and we have always expected to do that. And that
will include signalization issues, as well as extending traffic lanes
that we are fully prepared to and committed to making.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning's
next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll come right back to you.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: While we're on the traffic
issue, Rich, being that's an activity center, I know we're not looking
at the commercial today, but the plan that you're showing where the
affordable housing is going, the concern that I have is precluding a
viability of a loop road within -- within the project. So we know
what's ultimately going to be there and approve it in pieces, I do not
want to create a problem down the road with traffic issues.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, exactly. We have -- we
have made sure from day one, when we are speaking to anybody who
will listen, that this project will include a loop road. It will include a
road from 951 when we bring the commercial in, because right now I
don't have the right to ask for the commercial because I don't want
have a comprehensive plan amendment approved that allows for that.
But there will be a loop road from 951 to U.S. 41, and we will have
to address the traffic issues here. We think that this is going to assist
in that. There will be interconnectivity between this portion of the
activity center and our portion of the commercial property.
But right now we knew we could not -- we -- we needed to look
at this as a stand-alone project. And as a stand-alone project, the
traffic impacts will be onto U.S. 41, and it will be 224 units.
When we add the second phase of the residential and the
commercial and that loop road comes on board, we're going to have
Page 64
March 26, 2002
to address to the commission's satisfaction any traffic issues on 951.
And we're fully prepared to do that.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: While we're looking at this
today, can you commit your clients of-- of creating a -- some kind of
road to take off-- the pressure off of Collier Boulevard and 951 in a
loop road that I envision is not a squig -- squiggly line on the
property making it deterring people from using it? It's something
that's accessible to keep away from the four comers.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We can commit to that. And this
will not be your typical local road. This will be built to county
standards and--
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. Can you tell
me what the -- I've had a few people ask me this. What is that
property out front? That isn't yours, by the way? Do you know what
that's zoned for?
MR. YOVANOVICH: This right here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: To about right here is all activity center,
so it is eligible for commercial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So this is going to be
commercial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This (indicating) is owned by the state.
Why, I don't know. And this is -- I don't -- I don't know the answer
to that question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: It's zoned agricultural.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's zoned ag, but it's not within the
Page 65
March 26, 2002
activity center.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Yovanovich, when we talked
about this yesterday was it about this project?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We talked briefly yesterday and then
again last week.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We discussed the
willingness of your client to provide an access road, that access road
that's outlined in green trees, I presume, there, from 41 --. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that would serve both
commercial facilities if, in fact, any commercial facilities are
approved so that there would be sufficient right-of-way guaranteed to
provide that loop road for both commercial facilities. But under the
current petition there would be no connection from the residential
portion to 951. Okay? So -- so what we're really doing is -- is we are
looking forward to the situation where one day, perhaps, there will be
some commercial there, and we want to have the interconnectivity.
And so --just so we're clear on that, I wanted to make -- make sure
that we had that interconnectivity for the commercial, as well as the
residential.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Coyle, we-- we
guarantee that interconnectivity between the residential and the
commercial and that this loop road, when we bring the commercial,
we will do that. And as -- likewise, we will guarantee
interconnectivity with property we don't own to hopefully bring the --
you know, hope -- at some point we -- we are -- we've been asked by
some members of the Eagle Creek community to see what we can do
to help them get a traffic light here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask the people in the
Page 66
March 26, 2002
audiences -- no. You're going to have to be quiet. We're going to
keep order here. When you get up to speak, I'll see that you won't be
interrupted at that point in time too.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, I'm glad that question was
asked. A specific date of the meeting was September 27th. It was
held at Eagle Creek. The members present were -- and I -- if I
misread-- but I'll hand into the record-- what I did is I called on
Mr. Paul Alvarez, recognizing that the community was still under the
control of the developer as far as the association went. I called
Mr. Alvarez and said, please invite the people you believe can get the
word out to the community as to what we're doing. And this was at
the comp. plan stage when we're talking about commercial and we're
talking about the affordable housing.
And Mr. Alvarez was there; Carl Rude was there; Will Kriz, K-
r-i-z; Joe Vic -- Favino or Favono (phonetic) -- I don't know how you
say it -- David Amico; and Herb Sherwood were there. I was there;
Wayne Arnold was there; and Bill Schrage was there where we
brought out our petition and let everybody know what we were doing.
The comments we heard at that meeting were, we'd like a traffic
light. We'd like improvements to 951 as far as landscaping goes, and
keep the landscaping low so it would not block view. That's what
occurred at the meeting, and those were the individuals that were at
the meeting. And we have -- we -- we had that meeting, and it was
on September 27th at their clubhouse.
So with that, I mean, we have -- as we always do, Wayne and I -
- you hear me say this every time is we have these meetings, and we
want to know what the issues are and how do we address them, and
we've done that on multiple occasions, especially going through the
extraordinary step of, again, mailing notice for Friday. We had a
meeting on Friday to let them know, let everybody know about the
reduction in density, the new phasing, and we advertised it in the
Page 67
March 26, 2002
newspaper. So we have gone above and beyond in making people
aware of what our project is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich, we're coming up
on a time certain.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we break and before you
come back and get going with us again, I'm going to be asking you
the question about the interconnect to -- to 951 early on rather than
later on. So you might want to discuss it with your client, some of
your people.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll be happy to do that. I'll do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: From that we're going to put a
bookmark at this point in time. We'll come back to it. We'll give
everybody due time and due process.
VOICE IN AUDIENCE: What time?
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's going to be after lunch,
after one o'clock when we --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. We're trying to move
this forward and accommodate everybody in this room one way or
another. Actually, it wasn't scheduled to even be started to be heard
for another -- probably about another hour, hour and a half. We
moved it forward.
VOICE IN AUDIENCE: So you're going to resume at one
o'clock?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. This meeting is still underway,
so I'm going to ask you to please exit quietly. We have another
agenda item we're going to at this point in time. But for the
Henderson Creek issue, plan on one o'clock to reconvene on that -- THE COURT REPORTER: You told me 1:30.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. No, correction. That's
1:30. Right, Mr. Olliff?.
Page 68
March 26, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: (Nodded head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 1:30. 1:30. We stand corrected.
1:30. Thank you for asking the question, and thank you for the
correction.
I'm going to please ask you to exit silently so we can continue
the meeting.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We've got a quorum. Roll them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next item on-- the next item
on your agenda, which was the time certain 11:30 item --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more time. I'm going to have to
ask you to please take the conversation out in the hall. We have a
meeting underway here. Thank you.
Item # 10E
WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS OF THE ADVISORY BOARDS
SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW 1N 2002 - PRESENTED
MR. OLLIFF: Next item is a review of advisory boards. Your
advisory board ordinance, which is an overall managing ordinance
for all of your advisory boards, your over 40 advisory boards now,
requires that on every fourth year advisory boards come to the board
and make a presentation so the board can make a determination about
whether or not those advisory boards are still being effective in terms
of the mission for which they were originally established.
As the executive summary outlines, there are six advisory
boards up for review in 2002. Those will be the Affordable Housing
Commission, Black Affairs Advisory Board, Forest Lakes Roadway
and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee, Hispanic Advisory
Board, Historical Archeological Advisory Board and, finally, the
Page 69
March 26, 2002
Public Vehicle Advisory Board.
With that, I'd like to call on the chairs or the representatives of
those committees who are here who are required, also, by ordinance
to come make a verbal presentation to the board as part of the review.
So if I could ask the Affordable Housing Commission director to
take that podium there and make your presentation, I'd appreciate it.
MR. ELLIS: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Good morning,
Commissioners. My name is David Ellis, and I'm the chairman of the
Affordable Housing Commission for Collier County and the City of
Naples.
I'll be brief. I'm sure you received a copy of our annual report
that we submit to you. And many of the things you'll see there are
things you seen in the past, the things that we're doing. Just to
quickly outline, the Affordable Housing Commission -- our goal is
really to help be a watchdog for affordable housing issues in Collier
County dealing directly with our comp. plan and other issues that
take place in the county. Even today you received a letter from us
about it, one of the projects we're looking at.
Some of the things we're working on in terms of organizational
and just happening in the county, we're working now in our -- our
third countywide housing fair which, by the way, you're all invited to.
It will be June 1 st out at the Golden Gate Community Center. We're
going to bring in folks that represent and work with affordable
housing and share with people in the community the opportunities of
having a home in Collier County. Many of the people in our
community that don't have a home; there's a lot of barriers. But one
of the barriers that we can overcome easily is through education.
There's a lot of programs out there, and we hope to promote those
programs to the people in Collier County so that they know.
Also, last year we did something that I thought was momentous
in Collier County. Right here in this room you remember the
Page 70
March 26, 2002
workshop we brought together many of the players that deal with
affordable housing. I will tell you if we're making a report in the last
year, the issues of housing for our work force in Collier County have
gotten a great deal of attention by this commission, and we applaud
you and thank you for that. As a matter of fact, one of the goals that
we're working most diligently on is working to remove the stigma
from that type of housing in Collier County. It's important that we
find places for the people that work here to live here.
And in that, also the work-force housing commission is doing a
lot of work, and we've met with them and representatives of that
group to discuss the interactive roles because on face value you might
say, well, there's two groups doing the same thing. But, in essence,
what we're trying to do is -- right now with that task force mentality
of the work-force group -- Miss Fiala's on it, and I happen to be on as
well -- we're working what I think a lot of the -- the -- the core issues
in terms of what's out there and barriers that might be in our -- in our
rules and those types of things. It will really be up to this
commission to implement and work through those things long term
because that task force has a day that it's done. And in this case it
will be the Affordable Housing Commission as we work with them to
really pick up that ball and carry it long term.
Just a few of the things to -- that I wanted to mention today:
One of the things the commission is really working on is becoming a
more vocal entity with you. And, again, today, we submitted a letter
to you addressing the Henderson Creek PUD, not so much trying to
deal with the aspects of what you-all are trying to talk about today,
the traffic issues and those things. Those are the things you-all have
to deal with.
What we wanted to say was we need affordable work-force
housing in Collier County. And when it fits, we'd like for you to
make accommodation for that to occur. It's important that we do
Page 71
March 26, 2002
these things in Collier County. And sometimes they're tough
decisions. We'd ask you to make those tough decisions when you
feel like they're appropriate and they fit into the overall plan but it
needs to be -- I guess I'd like to say if you're on the fence we'd like
you to fall on the side of the fence because we do need that housing.
The last thing that I'd really say is call on us. We're -- we're
here, and in times you haven't heard a lot from us, but call on us. I'd
be thrilled to hear in this meeting what does the Affordable Housing
Commission think about the effect this will have on the ability to
create housing opportunities in Collier County. Let us know how we
can be a resource to you. I know many of you we've talked. As you
came onto the commission, this was an issue for you. Let us know
what you have us do so that we can better serve the citizens of Collier
County as relate to affordable housing and we can better serve you as
an advisory board. Thank you very much. Do you have any
questions of us?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
MR. ELLIS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Yes, just a few quick ones, David.
First of all, I think it's a wonderful
thing that you're holding this fair because so many people need to
come to this fair. And I know that you've been doing this for years,
and I'm sure that the attendance grows every time. I have three
particular questions.
MR. ELLIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who's the chairman from the
county; who's your staff person?
MR. ELLIS: Cormac Giblin.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. ELLIS: Cormac -- as a matter of fact, we should mention
Cormac became a father for the second time on Friday.
Page 72
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Boy or girl?
MR. GIBLIN: Girl.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations. I was wondering,
how was the attendance of that committee? Do you have --.
MR. ELLIS: We always have -- we seem to always have a
quorum. I don't know. Usually if somebody's not there, but we have
a quorum at our meetings.
MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin again for the record. There are
nine commission members on that commission. Typically we have
almost a hundred percent attendance at each meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just great. I -- I'm pleased to
hear that because we're going to be expecting that group to take up
the ball that we passed them from the work-force housing task force
area. Thank you.
MR. ELLIS: Again, Commissioners, as -- as you deal with
issues, that's just one question. There's so many important issues in
Collier County, transportation, the things you're talking about today.
But we'd like you to keep that issue in mind as you make
decisions in the future. Again, let us know how we can be a resource
to you.
One other thing I did want to mention, there's a number of
members of the commission who came today just to support. I would
like to ask them to stand so you can just recognize them and see
them. Don't be shy. Anyway, a few of them made it, and we
appreciate it.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Familiar faces.
MR. ELLIS: They work real hard for you in regard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And, David, if I may add something,
I -- I really appreciate what everybody's doing. Years ago, back in
1991, I appeared before this commission, not the same members, of
Page 73
March 26, 2002
course, but it was for the Golden Gate Master Plan, which was the
original master plan. And I can remember the support we got from
the commission and how important it was to us at that time. And I
assure you your-- your work is very meaningful. It means a lot to us,
and your findings and your advice that you pass on to us we give
serious consideration.
MR. ELLIS: Well, thank you very much, Commissioner, and,
again, let us know how we can help you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner, one quick thing
for Mr. Ellis. Would your group look at what the State of California
is doing in affordable housing, and this is equity ownership? I
understand that they are building units that just knock your socks off
in terms of what the density is, but they're owner occupied. And
there's a gentleman's name I'll give you who resides in the greater
Detroit area and here part of the time who is very familiar with these
processes. And any -- anything that we can glean from his
experience that you can bring back to us I would appreciate.
MR. ELLIS: Commissioner, again, I think that's something
we'll be studying in the future, is how we work with our comp. plan
and what's out there in terms of that.
One other thing I will mention, the Affordable Housing
Commission did take a position with the state on the money that was
being taken, and we're fortunate at this point that that money's been
restored back to the Sadowski (phonetic) money, which is our
affordable housing money, and we're looking to take some more
active positions with the state in terms of how we get that money.
We send about three times the money to the state that we get back in
that regard. We realize that helps some other counties that don't have
those resources. We've got to look at a way. There's a lot of
formulas that we have with the state that don't work well in Collier
County, but we intend on being an advocate on that behalf and on the
Page 74
March 26, 2002
county's behalf.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And as an advocate, you alerted the
task force, and we supported the effort.
MR. ELLIS: And it worked out well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad you brought that thing up.
I never heard of that before but boy, do we need to look at that.
MR. ELLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Ellis, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you happen to have information
along that line, would you bring it to our next meeting? Thank you.
MR. ELLIS: Well, certainly. I certainly will.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next committee -- and I will
apologize in advance because I think because of the item preceding
this one, some of the representatives may have left and may want to
make their presentations when they come back later this afternoon.
But we'll see who's still in the room. The Black Affairs Advisory
Board was the next committee, and the report was prepared in
conjunction with Mr. Dunnuck. And their chair, Mr. Albert Wabbey
(sic), I don't know if-- Mr. Wabbey is here.
MR. WABBEY: Good morning. How are you? My name's
John Wabbey, and I'm the chairperson of the Black Affairs Advisory
Board. And I just want to say that I'm really pleased to be here. I
just want to mention a couple things. It's probably not referred to
often, but, you know, our -- our committee, our group, deals in a very
sensitive issue. And I know that my -- my members of my group, we
stay in a solution; we deal in the solution. And we're talking about
diversity. We're talking about minority issues. And I know that we
have the support of the county board of commissioners. And I know
for a fact and I know it in here, because it takes a lot of courage, it
Page 75
March 26, 2002
takes a lot of fortitude to stand up and say, "Hey, we believe this
issue. And we need to work on this. We need a solution." So it's a
lot easier to talk about problems, but it's more difficult to talk about
things that are good.
And I -- I think that the county -- that the people of the county
really ought to be appreciative of what you do, because in the last few
months I've just kind of watched, and I've sat in on meetings, and I
can't believe the intensity that goes on here. And I don't know if I
have a full appreciation, but I tell you I have a lot more today than I
did in the past. So I just want to thank you for your courage and
dedication to our committee.
And maybe just one other thing that is, John Dunnuck who is
our liaison officer. And I can't really say enough about John because
he comes in with a passion, with a desire to help us. And we really
appreciate his input. He's -- at many times where we're kind of stuck
on an issue and he would bring light to it, you know, and sort of be in
another area. And he would say, well, what about this? And all of a
sudden it would open up a forum for us. So we're really appreciative
that we're able to have John Dunnuck as our liaison officer. And we
don't look at him as a county employee but as a friend, an associate of
our group. All right. I just want to thank you personally for that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'd like to thank you and your
committee for the time that they're giving to the county.
MR. WABBEY: That's what we're here for. I know there's a lot
of issues with minorities. I -- I know in my heart that I believe that
what we do do work on are the problems. And we're -- you know,
we're only an advisory board, so we can't go out and actually take
action and do the footwork. But through the contact with John and --
and the board, I feel that you're doing what we can't do. And I think
it's more appropriate that we address these issues with you, and I
think that's the way we'll solve our problems.
Page 76
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ask a question: How was the
attendance at the Black Affairs Committee?
MR. WABBEY: I would say about 95 percent of the time we
have a quorum. We have a total of nine members. Occasionally we
hit all nine occasionally. There's a lot of demands on -- on people
coming and going. But, you know, the people that are there all the
time are there all the time. So we have the same sort of core
members that -- that attend our meetings and that are very passionate
about what we -- what we do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WABBEY: Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, sir.
of your committee here today with you?
MR. WABBEY: I don't believe so.
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
regards?
MR. WABBEY:
you for your courage.
Do you have any members
I haven't seen anyone here
Would you give them our best
I certainly will. And, again, thank you. Thank
I appreciate being here. Have a great day.
MR. OLLIFF: That was a refreshing report.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did a good written job, by the way.
MR. OLLIFF: The next committee is the Forest Lakes
Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee, and I do believe
we have a representative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You skipped the Hispanic.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is the pine trees; right?
MR. OLLIFF: This is.
MR. JONES: My name is Bob Jones. I'm the chairman of the
Forest Lakes Drainage and Roadway MSTU. Do you have any
questions of me?
Page 77
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I guess the standard question, sir,
would be how effective is your committee? Is it -- do the members
feel they're serving a purpose?
MR. JONES: Yes. I think that we're very happy with the
progress we're making. It's a little slow. Our MSTU was created in
1991, and it's been several years of working on these various projects.
And now in the last year and a half we have started to see some very
positive results. The only thing I -- and -- and another thing I might
tell you is that in order to help speed up some of the results, our
committee of five have chosen to meet every three weeks. And to do
that, which gives us some extra opportunity to get things ready to get
into your busy schedules, and you are busy. I know that. But we're
busy trying to help you stay busy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And doing a good job.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Henning, it will
be a pleasure to have this group in your district. They're just a quiet
group that just gets it done, you know, and you won't hear much from
them unless they've really got something that they need. But it's
always been my pleasure to work with you, and I can always say the
greatest things about how effective you've been in working with your
community.
MR. JONES: Well, thank you, Dr. Carter. I appreciate that
very much. We are happy with the backing we can get. We'd just
like to be able to speed it up a little bit because we do have a lot of
things we have to do to correct our errors, and we're going to be
before you pretty soon with a summary from Bob Petersen, our
liaison, who is asking you to raise our cap rate to 3 mills. And as
soon as we have that accomplished, then the meeting will go forward,
and we will then come back with a summary of what we're going to
do with that money. And then we will go back to our group of 14
communities and get their permission to continue.
Page 78
March 26, 2002
We come to the realization that there is a lot of things that have
to be fixed, and I guess we're just going to have to keep biting the
bullet and agree to pay more taxes for that purpose and fix them. If
we can just get your backing to let us go to work, we'll roll up our
sleeves even a little further.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually, Mr. Jones, we'll be looking
for directions from you.
MR. JONES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You bet. I'm going to tuck him
under my arm and take him to homeowners' meetings because you
really understand how well an MSTU works, and that it is the best of
every aspect of home rule. It's as close as you can get to taxing
yourselves for those things that you want for yourself under your
local leadership. It doesn't get any better than that.
MR. JONES: No. I've always said, I think about the finest form
of government is a benevolent dictatorship. If you have the people
there, they -- they want to go. They just need guidance. And when
you can get the message across to them, they join arms, and away we
go. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not from me, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
MR. JONES: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next committee up for review
is your Hispanic Advisory Committee, your Hispanics Affairs
Advisory Board, and I saw David Correa in the audience, and he is
here to make a presentation.
MR. CORREA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, honored
members of the board of county commissioners. According to the
county code, we are required to submit a status and activities report at
the -- every fourth year. I have provided an executive summary
report to the county manager and to the board. Therefore, I will not
Page 79
March 26, 2002
clutter the record with redundancy.
Instead, I will take a minute of your time to place my personal
thoughts on record, as I believe my term of appointment on the board
will expire early next year, and I feel it's important that certain
thoughts be placed on record. Okay.
As your advisory board from the Hispanic community, we have
come before this board a number of times to provide information
and/or request action be taken on numerous issues affecting the
Hispanic community. At times our advice has been gracefully
accepted. Other times it has been gracefully declined, which is as --
as it should be, in fact. We wouldn't expect -- we wouldn't respect
you if you were rubber-stamping. The entire community would not
respect you if you were rubber-stamping all of our thoughts and all of
our pleasures.
But at all times we have shown respect for each other. Most
important, we have appreciated the opportunity to have an open line
of communication to be able to address this board to seek solutions
on issues and problems relating to the community. That to me is the
true essence of democracy. Therefore, I do wish to thank you for the
time and for your consideration you have granted to the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board of Collier County in the past and hopefully
into the future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: David, I just want to know, how is
the attendance?
MR. CORREA: The attendance is great. We haven't had -- I
don't believe we've had to cancel one meeting in the past year
because of a lack of a quorum.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good for you. Thanks.
MR. CORREA: Now, we don't get too much participation from
the general public but--
Page 80
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's okay.
MR. CORREA: -- that's with -- every group, I would say, has
that same problem, you know. You only have a certain number of--
a couple of Indians and that's it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad to hear that they're all
there and passionate about the subject. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for all you're
doing and your committee.
MR. CORREA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, your next board is your Historical
and Archeological Advisory Board. And I don't know if there's a
representative of that group still remaining or not. It doesn't appear
SO.
The next group would be your Public Vehicle Advisory
Committee, PVAC. And I believe the chair is here.
MR. PEASE: Bryan Pease, chairman of the PVAC. For the
next three hours I'll be talking about the PVAC.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I hope you have a nice
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There won't be anybody here.
MR. PEASE: Actually, a lot of the overview has been provided,
so I won't dwell on that too much, just to share with you our focus is
on the safety of the citizens as it relates to transportation in terms of
taxis, sedans, limousines, that level of vehicle. We've been involved
with redoing the ordinance that we recommended to you. We worked
together on a number of other issues.
This year we've spent the greater emphasis on vehicle
maintenance. We have an inspection program that's in operation for
those type vehicles. And also we're very close to implementing
criminal background checks on all drivers with those companies.
So we continue to focus on that.
Page 81
March 26, 2002
We're also working with the City of Naples and the Collier
County sheriffs and code enforcement on enforcement issues. That's
our focus for this year and to -- to do an even better job of doing that.
We have a very strong and active committee, and in anticipating
your question, we have a great turnout. The -- we have a strong
committee that's really involved and wants to make decisions that --
and recommendations that are in the best interest of everyone.
And I want to thank Michelle Arnold from the county who
works with us hand in hand, as well as my committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the point needs to be made
that the advisory -- people that serve on these advisory committees
serve as part of the commission, but they do without pay and give up
their time. And in this case they're working people, and they're
taking time off from work to come to these meetings to advise us on
their expertise. We can't tell you how much we do appreciate it.
And your committee has been one of the most active ones I've
ever seen. They always seem to meet at least three times a year. I
know I see you sitting out there six hours at meetings for your turn to
speak on certain issues. And I admire your courage and your
perseverance to be able to stay with the issues.
MR. PEASE: I thank you very much. And I'll share that with
our committee as well, who unfortunately is not here today, but I'll
make sure they hear that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. PEASE: Thank you very much.
Item #9A
RES. 2002-158 APPOINTING ALINA PRIOR PROTUONDO TO
THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD- ADOPTED
Page 82
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, we have under--
because we jumped around on the agenda, but under Board of County
Commissioners, we have about three items I think we could dispose
of very easily before lunch
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, Mr. Carter. What are
those three items you would suggest?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would suggest we go to
9-A, appointment of a member to Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it 5 to 0.
Item #9B
RES. 2002-159 APPOINTING SUSAN BECKER, KEVIN DURKIN
AND GARY GALLEBERG TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The second item would be
appointment of members to the Tourist and Development Council.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now we're getting into something I
wanted to make a comment on. Sorry about that. Do you want to go
to the next one first?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're not ready.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you want a motion on that
one?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, I want a motion on that one.
Page 83
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would make -- make a motion
that we appoint Susan Becker and Kevin Durkin.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have confirmed one
member also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And we need to confirm the City
of Naples --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Gary Galleberg.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Gary Galleberg.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's-- let's wait. Do you want
to get to your page first there, Donna?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know what I was going to say
anyway, even though I can't get to it. I was having such a tough time
be -- choosing between Kevin Durkin who's done an outstanding job
and Bob Ditkin -- oh, I can't remember his last name.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dichter (phonetic)?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Dichter -- thank you -- from
Marco Island. And the reason I was having such a difficult process
here was because Marco -- when Glen Tucker leaves that committee,
there won't be any representation from Marco. Apparently
Everglades City takes over for the next four years. And I think that I
would like to see something introduced by our commission that --
that, oh, gives the same -- same respect to Marco that they already
give to the City of Naples by allowing them to have a permanent
position on this board. And so I'd love to have Kevin Durkin on here,
but when the time comes that Glen Tucker is going to be leaving, I
would like us to create a position -- a permanent position for Marco
as they do for the City of Naples. They do provide one-third of the
tourist tax dollars, and they should have some say.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That is a point well taken,
Page 84
March 26, 2002
Commissioner, but I think it would be outside of this motion and this
subject for today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to have it on the
record.
aye.
VICE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Opposed?
Ayes have it 5 to 0.
Item #9C
DISCUSSION REGARDING LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT (L&HWCA) AND
ITS APPLICABILITY TO COLLIER COUNTY'S
CONTRACTORS' ORDINANCE - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: He's back. We could probably
do C. We're going to 9-C.
MR. MOUNTFORD: Commissioners, William Mountford,
assistant county attorney, for-- with the matter of the
Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' issue, and Mr. Hardt is here
also. He is the attorney for the Association, I believe.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If there aren't any motion --
questions by the commissioners, I'll move for --
MS. FILSON: We have several speakers on this item.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then I guess we won't do that
one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you opened a can of worms
Page 85
March 26, 2002
with this one, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, then maybe you want to
skip that. I know one we can resolve is we go to 9-D as in David.
MR. MOUNTFORD: Maybe -- maybe the question should be if
there any speakers in opposition, because I think the speakers here
are in favor of what's going to happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Will you indicate by raising your
hand if you're in opposition?
Okay, Commissioner Carter, you're on a roll.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
MR. MANALICH: I guess the question is, are the people that
registered here --.
MR. MOUNTFORD: Can you give their names?
MS. FILSON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If we were to -- let me put it this way
here: If we were to move for approval on this item, like we're
heading right at this point in time, would you feel a need to speak?
MR. HARDT: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Everybody's waiving?
MR. HARDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. Thank you
for bringing that up. And we -- we wouldn't want to step out of
bounds.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if I--.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- could just get a clarification, I
think what the county's attorney was telling us, that there might be
some people who have registered who are not in the audience to tell
us whether or not they object.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That-- that's a good point. Let's read
Page 86
March 26, 2002
the names off, and would you raise your hands when they're read off.
MS. FILSON: Fred Hardt, Ed Day--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ed Day? Wait, hold on. Hold on.
MR. HARDT: Ed Day left, but he's in favor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Tom Dunne.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Butch Morgan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Waive.
MS. FILSON: Blake Wishart.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive.
MS. FILSON: And Tom Dunne, Jr.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Waive also. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. That's a good point to bring
up.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we call the motion. All those in
favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0.
Item #9D
RES. 2002-160 SUPPORTING INCREASED FUND1NG FOR
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILS - ADOPTED
With that, we'll break for lunch, break off for lunch.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you got D, and you can get
that done and you're out of here. D is only a resolution by the Board
of County Commission --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead.
Page 87
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- to support increasing funding
from the State to the Regional Planning Council. This was a -- a
resolution that was passed by the Regional Planning Council.
They're asking all counties to make up the Regional Planning Council
to support that. Because we have such a successful Regional
Planning Council, we don't want to see the value of this group
diminished.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it 5 to 0. Good work,
Commissioner Carter. I appreciate your help on that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. I guess you want to
adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're -- we're adjourned until 1:30.
Item #8B
ORD. 2002-15 RE PETITION PUDZ-2002-AR- 1978, GATEWAY
SHOPPES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD YOVANOVICH
OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, AND WARNE
ARNOLD OF Q. GRADY M1NOR & ASSOCIATES, RE A
REZONE FROM "RSF-3" TO "PUD" KNOWN AS HENDERSON
CREEK PUD, ALLOWING 500 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS AND REQUESTING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BONUS DENSITY AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL, ONE-HALF MILE EAST OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD - CONTINUED UNTIL LATER IN THE
MEETING
Page 88
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's proceed where we left off, Mr.
Yovanovich.
THE WITNESS: I want to add one more thing for the record,
affordable housing density agreement. It's a description of the
project. Is it on?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can hear you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Anyway, I wanted to add the project
description for the affordable housing density bonus agreement real
quickly into the record. The one-bedroom units will be
approximately 800 square feet with one bathroom. Two-bedroom
units will be approximately 1,000 square feet with two bathrooms
and three-bedroom units will be approximately 1,200 square feet with
two bathrooms, all units will have carpeting and vinyl. Appliances
will include refrigerators, stove, dishwasher, and washer and dryer
hookups, and washer and dryers will be provided as an optional extra.
Amenities will include a clubhouse, which you'll see, a pool,
computer lab, exercise room, and laundry facility. I needed to make
sure that was added to the record.
And with that I'll turn the mike over to Mr. Arnold, and then he'll be
followed by Grady Minor, and then Mr. Law will go through the
project.
MR. ARNOLD: Hi, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor
Engineering, and what I'd like to do is talk to you a little bit about
location, compatibility and issues that we focused a little bit on but
not in great detail today. The visualizer shows you our project. I'll go
ahead and post that board, but I'll go ahead and talk from here.
The project that you're looking at, again, is not adjacent to
Collier Boulevard. It's approximately 1,000 feet east of Collier
Boulevard. Either access point is located on U.S. 41 east. The
Page 89
March 26, 2002
property abuts the Holiday Manor Mobile Home Park to the south.
Their density is approximately 12 units per acre. Our project density,
with the commitment Mr. Yovanovich made today for Phase 1,
brings that total density today down to five dwelling units per acre
across the entire site. When we come back to you and ask for Phase
2, with hopeful approval of that project, that would bring the density
to eight units per acre, still less than our most immediate neighbor,
Holiday Manor Mobile Home Park.
Again, pointing out, we are adjacent to the north Activity Center
No. 18. We've gone through an analysis for the comp plan that
looked at this area as being a very centralized location between the
City of Naples employment areas, Corridor 951 that is blossoming
and, of course, Marco Island that is nearly developed.
This particular piece of property, our nearest neighbor, at
Holiday Manor we met with them several times to talk about issues
that they had and, of course, security was an issue. And Mr.
Yovanovich indicated to you that we would be providing the security
wall, which would be a solid precast concrete wall for the entire
perimeter of our southern boundary. And we also made a
commitment to them that we would reduce the building heights to
two stories.
One of the things that really doesn't get addressed unless you get
into the meat of the PUD document is that we also committed to a
minimum 40-foot building setback from our property line, and in
addition to that we committed to a 20-foot-wide buffer at a minimum,
which is larger than the county code would normally require.
In this particular case, we also have a situation where Phase 1
has approximately 500 linear feet of adjacency to the Holiday Manor
Mobile Home Park. The entire property boundary is about 1,800 feet
in length, so less than a third of our project boundary for the initial
phase will abut the Holiday Manor and have what you might consider
Page 90
March 26, 2002
an immediate impact on at least what they're going to be seeing or
hearing or observing over there.
We think that between our buffering, the limited building
heights that we're easily a compatible neighbor. And if you merely
look at density I think that it would be clearly compatible, and I think
in most situations -- we have a scenario here where we're looking at
activity center commercial. We're looking at a rental apartment
complex adjacent to commercial, whether it's our future commercial
phase or the adjacent to the north and then transition to what we hope
is a owner-occupied housing project that's slightly lower transitional
density.
And I think from a land-use perspective this makes sense. It's
sort of the concept that has never been fully developed and a lot of
the other activity center areas where you could have commercial and
residential all in the same quadrant all having access through a
primary spine road and having hopefully two alternative connections
to our major arterial network.
One of the things, too, that I wanted to point out, we do -- don't
have impact to wetlands on this part of the site, so what you see in
terms of density as gross is just about what you get in terms of the net
density. We don't have to cluster the buildings so tightly to avoid
those wetland impacts. We're looking at impacting what is
principally an old barn field that has already been sort of devoid of
vegetation, if you will, and the balance of the site has upland
vegetation on it as you go toward the creek.
One of the other issues, too, when we look at this corridor --
East Trail Corridor and the 951 Corridor is made up largely of large
master plan communities; Lely Resort, Lely Lakes, Old Lely,
Winding Cypress, Fiddler's Creek. You go on down the list of north,
south, and west, and you have a lot of your frontage that's devoted to
these larger master planned communities that are principally golf
Page 91
March 26, 2002
course amenitized communities. There are very few parcels, when
you look at this, the size that we're looking at to try to develop and
have the opportunity to develop affordable housing.
One of the issues that came up was the issue of location and the
density, and the one thing that needs to be said is your comprehensive
plan does contemplate that you can go up to the eight units per acre in
this portion of the county. We have to respect the traffic congestion
zone number, which brings that one unit reduction to your overall
density potential, but again, we're further committed to reducing that
number to no more than eight but today hoping to get a density of
five units per acre on our 45-acre project.
Again, I think we are compatible. I think we've done that
analysis. We are consistent with your comprehensive plan that's been
identified in your findings, for the record, with the county staff
report, county commission report. We hope that you can support the
project. I know that one of the issues that has been raised by our
neighbors was a drainage issue. Grady Minor's here to talk to you
about our water management and how we're going to be handling it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one second, please.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As long as you have been
discussing properties that are along this area, I wanted to complete
the picture. First of all, in your presentation you mention that you
hope that this is what it's built out to, and I'm glad you stated it that
way because we really don't know. The picture that we've painted is
very pretty, but then you're selling it to somebody who might not
build to what the picture is that you have painted for us. I just wanted
to make that point.
The second point that I wanted to discuss -- and that is Policy
1.4. I have to put my glasses on to read this. Excuse me. (As read):
"Affordable housing will be distributed equally throughout the
Page 92
March 26, 2002
county using strategies which include but are not limited to density
bonus agreements and impact fee waivers or deferrals. In addition,
affordable housing will be located where adequate infrastructure and
services are available." The first sentence, "distributed equally
throughout the county," I thought was very interesting because in this
particular road starting at the west portion of Naples Manor the
communities that are there and already built all the way down to
West Winds which is five miles down U.S. 41, we're talking about
the strip right down
U.S. 41, the only community that isn't affordable housing is Lely
Resort. Along that stretch we have Hitching Post, Victoria Falls.
That's the newest for the community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner --
Commissioner Fiala, do they get tax credits for that, for Hitching
Post? For West Winds?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. All I'm talking about
is what is what is. I don't know if they got tax credits or not. Maybe
they were built before, but certainly -- you know, they never even
included Naples Manor. Tell me that isn't an affordable housing
community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I can tell you that they
did not get tax credits for Naples Manor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't care. I'm saying that in
Policy 1.4 it says, "affordable housing will be distributed equally
throughout the county." Five miles long of equal distribution is not
equal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What I want to do is -- the question
she's addressing is to who, or is that a statement?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was really to him, and it's mostly
a statement. I just don't feel that we are conforming to our own
policy.
Page 93
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you want to comment
on that?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. Thank you. As I read Policy 1.4 and
the adopted comprehensive plan, there is a -- I think a very clear
distinction. The word is not "equally"; the word is "equitably"
distributed throughout the county. I think they do mean two different
things, but I think the bottom line is the intent is that you are not
going to target a location in the county for placing affordable
housing, that you need to find an equitable way to distribute these
throughout the county. And I think when you look at the affordable
housing map that your county staff has put together that's based on
rental projects -- and I know that there are issues with how the
accounting is done and whether or not you include Naples Manor and
whether or not you can include Golden Gate City and on and on, but
when we look at the data the county has prepared we don't see with
this addition this being anything other than clearly in a location that
makes sense.
I know that we did map that. Rich has got that exhibit. The
green houses by commission district show clearly that District 1 has
four of those affordable housing developments. If you look at
District 3, we're showing that there are six of those in District 3 for
instance. And, of course, we highlighted ours in red, District 5, we
added the recently approved Bucks Run project up at Vanderbilt and
951. Although it's not on your county list yet, we went ahead and
added that one. So the two that are in District 5 in the coastal area
would be at our Henderson Creek project that we're proposing and
again up at Bucks Run.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we need more in District 1
then.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. You lost me.
Page 94
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think you could pack any
more in, Commissioner Henning. What we do need is we need some
equalization in the area. You know, they're already permitted for
three homes per acre which we would embrace, we would just
welcome with open arms because we need something more than just
workforce housing or affordable housing in order to equalize that
area.
But one of the problems that we're having, especially that
particular area, is over at Manatee school. I don't know how many of
you are aware, but at Manatee school 92 percent of the children have
English as their second language. The reason they're rated an F
school is because there is not a more equal distribution of children
there from other than just workforce housing. And you've got to
offer them some other opportunities where you can blend a mix of
people so you can present other forms of housing just other than that.
Greystone, of course, I know you don't have Greystone on there,
that's an affordable community, but it is -- it is an over-55
community. And I notice that you don't have Trail Acres on there,
although that's certainly an affordable housing area, and you don't
have Victoria Falls on there, but I'm sure that should be. Treetops
should be on there as well, if I might add. I mean, these are things --
I think you're skewing the picture, and I think that's wrong.
MR. ARNOLD: Ma'am, if I could address that. I -- just really
to let you know, we took the county's data and mapped it, and I think
if you'll review their map versus ours, our addition was to put the
county commission district lines on that map. We didn't create the
data. We're using the county's information.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would use my own and make sure
it's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may comment on that. I
understand where you're coming with that. I can't agree with you
Page 95
March 26, 2002
more. I'd love to see this in Marco Island. I'd love to see it in Pelican
Bay. I'd like to see it in Naples also, no doubt about it. And when
the day comes I hope that we do see it there, and we're going to take
extraordinary efforts through your committee to be able to buy down
the price of land to be able to do it, and I'll endorse that 100 percent.
In the meantime, we've got to work with what we've got.
Under the same scenario events, I've got the most of District 5.
Take Immokalee, the whole thing would be considered affordable
housing. I don't want any more. Move everything to the coast.
That's not fair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But aren't you -- aren't you
now developing new plans where you have owner-occupied homes
and you introduce different -- different levels, and that's what I'm
saying here. I wouldn't want to take away --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand where you're coming
from. The same thing with Golden Gate City, for the most part that's
-- I don't know, maybe I'm wrong now, Commissioner Henning, but
that might still be considered affordable housing, probably not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if I may interject to let the
county manager give us a description of what affordable housing is in
our Growth Management Plan, then we could end this discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or enter it to new dimensions.
MR. OLLIFF: I think we're actually talking about an apple and
orange here, and there is a county definition for affordable housing
project, and Cormac Giblin will provide that for you.
MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Cormac Giblin. The definition of
affordable housing that is used for the map that has been presented
and for the county's numbers of what is an affordable housing unit is
anything that the county holds a long-term agreement on, so typically
we put a 15-year agreement on new apartment complexes to hold
them to certain rights and income limits of their residents. The
Page 96
March 26, 2002
definition -- the universal definition of affordable house is that
housing costs not exceed 30 percent of your gross monthly income.
The developments not listed on our map, some of them may be
affordable, but I would argue they are affordable for the wrong
reasons. They may be substandard or overcrowded or some other
reason mitigating that affordability. The complexes that we track and
define as affordable housing in this county are decent, safe places to
live for the residents of the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's answered our
question.
MR. OLLIFF: That's the distinction,
Mr. Chairman, and you -- the petitioner does have probably 10 or 15
minutes left of presentation, and if perhaps we could get through the
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please proceed. We'll wait and hold
our questions until he finishes his presentation.
MR. ARNOLD: The only thing I would add in closing my
presentation, I put a copy of the planned unit development
commercial and industrial zoning district map up on the board, and I
think that it becomes pretty obvious when we look at this entire
pattern of South Naples, I'll call it, between Fiddler's Creek, Winding
Cypress, Naples Reserve, Lely Resort, Lely Lakes Golf Course, and
Collier DRI, this area of the county is really looking at the largest
land mass going to master planned communities that have a desperate
need to support golf courses, their clubhouses, the commercial
components that are in each of those projects for affordable units that
they can count on to be well maintained and have standards for
leasing that control the way they are developed.
It's a critical issue. I know the number has -- goes all over the
board, but it's at least 10,000 units that I think the county is saying
that they have a deficit today of affordable housing units in the
Page 97
March 26, 2002
county. When we look at the future growth of this area, the 224 units
today that we're requesting is an infinite -- you know, infinitely small
number of units toward the deficit and one that I think we've
designed in a way that's compatible with our neighbors and consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad you introduced these
PUDs. That's an important component because my committee, which
is the Workforce Housing Task Force, is right now working on an
item called inclusionary zoning which means every PUD that isn't
already built is going to be forced, if you will, to contain some
workforce housing for their own workforce so people will live right
in that community. And that's something that's the way we're going
to spread out a lot of this workforce housing around the entire county
is to be mandatory for each PUD to include it. So those PUDs will be
including workforce housing. Thank you for mentioning that.
MR. ARNOLD: With that I'm going to turn it over to Grady
Minor.
MR. MINOR: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Grady Minor. I'm a registered
professional engineer in the State of Florida. I've been working in
Collier County now providing land development engineering services
for over 20 years.
There's issues about drainage. There's concerns about drainage
in the area, and I wanted to make a few comments to you.
This development that we're speaking of today is going to be
designed to meet the rules and regulations of the South Florida Water
Management District, and among their many requirements are that
you design your storm water system for 25-year three-day storm with
12.2 inches of rain over a 72-hour rainfall event. You are allowed to
bleed off a certain amount of water during that period, but you can't
bleed off more than discharge from your property in its
Page 98
March 26, 2002
predevelopment state. So you don't increase your drainages because
you add paving and buildings. You actually manage your storm
water so that you bleed it off in a more consistent rate.
I talked with your storm water management director John Boldt,
about this property and the drainage patterns in the area. He
informed me that we wouldn't be able to discharge any of our water
to either Collier Boulevard or to U.S. 41. All of our treated storm
water would need to be discharged to the east to Henderson Creek
along our east property line.
I mentioned to Mr. Boldt that Holiday Manor Park was adjacent
to us, and they were constructed at a much lower elevation probably
before the water management district even had rules in this area. Mr.
Boldt said he was aware of their situation. They have water in their
streets. I'm sure some of the residents will tell about that during
normal rainfall events. And he said that our water management
system should actually improve their situation because whereas now
water that falls on our property goes any way it wants to and some of
it goes on to their property, it's going to be contained within our berm
system and our storm water lake system and to have it routed to
Henderson Creek, and this is going to be an improvement for them.
Our preliminary calculations show that this 25-year three-day
storm event is going to require a perimeter berm around our
development -- developed portion of our property of approximately 3
feet in height above existing grade, and this berm will go, of course,
along the entire common property line with Holiday Manor so that
none of our storm water will be able to discharge from our site on to
theirs unless there were a storm event greater than that 12.2 inches.
Then some of it could.
We met with over 100 residents of Holiday Manor, and we
discussed this with them. They're rightfully concerned that anything
we do on this property not negatively impact them, and I tried to
Page 99
March 26, 2002
assure them that we won't negatively impact them; in fact, we're
going to improve their situation.
In summary, we're going to design our development for year
2002 drainage standards, and we won't have a drainage problem, nor
will we cause a drainage problem to any of our neighbors, and based
on that we request your approval of this petition. Unless you have
any questions, next is Mr. Pat Law who's going to talk to you about
architectural standards.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not a question --just a question for
Mr. Olliff. Do we have anyone from storm water management here
to answer questions from our staff?.
MR. OLLIFF: John Boldt's in the room. And just so you know
for PUD petition processes, your storm water department does a
review of the petition as well, and they are -- they're also then
subsequently going to be required to go to the South Water
Management District for their permits when they start doing final
engineering design.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions about the drainage?
MR. MINOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never knew there was an actual
Grady Minor. It's good to see who he is.
Hello. I just see the name.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Knew he existed.
MR. LAW: Mr. Chairman, county commissioners, my name is
Patrick Law from Wendover Housing Partners (phonetic). We have
developed two apartment communities in this county. One is called
Whistler's Cove. One is called Whistler's Green. They are
distinguishable from each other, and I want to be very clear for the
record that what we're talking about building on this development is
the Whistler's Green product. It's an eight-unit building two stories
high. I'll show you some quick pictures. He told me to do that.
Page 100
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One right there in your community;
right?
MR. LAW: This is Whistler's Green on Green Boulevard. If
you drive down Green Boulevard, you'll notice quite a few apartment
communities including one that's just been finished. Frankly, I
believe ours is the best-looking one there. We have 100 percent
occupancy. Actually, we had two move-outs this month with two
people moving in to replace them. We have no problems there. It's
168 units, and its density is approximately 11 units per acre, so what
we're talking about here is almost identical to that development.
Now, I'm going to show you another picture here which will
give you a better image of what one of the units looks like. It's two
stories high. There's eight units in there. Each doorway -- one door
goes upstairs and one door goes downstairs, so they're all private
entry. And I will tell you that we built both properties at the same
time, and we leased up the Whistler's Green product much faster, so
we're highly motivated to build that. I believe the agreement we're
doing will restrict us anyway to a two-story product, and we have no
problem restricting specifically what we're showing you we can build
because we've already built it in this county.
For clarification on an issue that has arisen, people talk about
Whistler's Cove and wonder why it seems so dense. Accordingly,
there's a concern that we might be doing something similar on this
property.
This is a picture of Whistler's Cove during construction. If
you'll notice, the portion of the picture that seems to have water on it
is wetland area. That site has eight acres of land which was used for
wetland mitigation. And, accordingly, the 240 units located there are
located on approximately 12 -- I think about 12 acres of land. That's
why it ended up being three-story buildings and why it ended up
being 24-unit large, what we call, a big-box building. We've only
Page 101
March 26, 2002
built two-big-box projects. One in Tallahassee on another tight site.
All the rest of our product around the state is exactly what you see at
Whistler's Green.
I think everybody else pretty much answered other
developmental questions, so I'll leave it at that and just simply
suggest that what we're representing can be built in the county, and
it's not just some pictures about something that might happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. In our-- in our
briefing here, one of the things it talked about was fill storage, and it
says, "fill material generated from other projects -- other products
owned or leased by the developer may be transported and stockpiled
within this area which has been -- which have been disturbed or
farmed. Stockpile maximum height is 20 feet. No stockpile shall
remain for longer than one period of year -- for one year period." I'm
wondering why are they stockpiling 20-feet-high fill material from
other projects that are leased or owned onto this? It kind of sounds
like a dump.
MR. LAW: Madam Commissioner, I really can't answer that
because we don't plan on stockpiling anything.
MR. ARNOLD: If I may, Wayne Arnold, again for the record.
I'm the person who drafted the language that was in the PUD. That
language went through some modification at your Planning
Commission hearing to add the one-year time limit and to reduce
heights from -- I believe we had 30 feet down to 20 feet, and that's --
in essence, we know there will be fill that has to be placed on the site.
There will be a time period where you have to stage during
construction where you bring dump trucks in and you dump the dirt
so that you can move it around on the site.
The 20 feet is a pretty typical dump truck load height that you
can attain and sill not end up having to deal with side slopes and
Page 102
March 26, 2002
containing the area. The county staff-- right now the code is silent
on how tall a stockpile height shall be or how long it can be there.
We thought that this was an easy way for everybody to agree. If you
would rather it remain silent and not be subject to the county staff
determination during the construction plan review, we're certainly
happy with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wayne, the storage of this
project here is the only one we're discussing. What is above and
beyond what Ms. Fiala read is other projects, so your commercial --
your -- the affordable workforce housing, I should say. I don't want
to get the issue confused. Would you be objecting to just deal with
storage of fill for these number of units?
MR. ARNOLD: No. We would have no objection to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If we could go back to the
first picture, please. The landscaping in that area seems to be very
sparse. I hope you plan to do something better for this particular
project.
MR. LAW:
comment before.
Let me -- let me address that because I've heard that
Actually, if you go out there, it gradually is
growing in. This particular-- it is affordable and the amount of
money that we have in the budget for landscaping is somewhat
limited. We spent over $1,400 a unit. The norm is to spend $1,200 a
unit for landscaping. Because this property has very, very long
frontage, the landscape got spread out over what otherwise -- when
you go into a lot of developments, you're driving in the front end has
a lot of landscaping around it, and you don't see the rest of the
property. If you drive around most of the developments in town,
even the market developments, you'll see that once you get back to
the buildings there's not so much landscaping around it. However, if
Page 103
March 26, 2002
there's a recommendation of how we might define more additional
landscaping, we're certainly more receptive to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does this meet minimum county
standards?
MR. LAW: Yes, sir. In fact, actually, if you go out and drive
around the site, you'll even see, admittedly not many, but some
preserve trees that are quite substantial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what you have there is a
double row of hedges of native vegetation for a hedge, and I think the
trees are around 30-foot center going by there. So that is our Land
Development Code according to 2.4. They grow up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Coyle, if I may, I'll go
back over here for a second. What really helps is we're 400 feet back
from U.S. 41 here and about 1,000 feet back from 951. Also, this
area right here (indicating) will remain a preserve and will not be
touched. So already we have a built-in preserve area right here, and
as Mr. Law was saying, we have much smaller frontage, so you can --
you can compact the landscaping materials to make sure that it
doesn't look as spread out as it does on other projects.
So I think this project is a unique location and we'll be able to
visually screen ourselves much better than other projects have been
done in the past.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mentioned a figure of $1,200
per unit. Is that essentially the same amounts you will use for this
project?
MR. LAW: We used 1,400 in the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fourteen hundred per unit.
MR. LAW: -- for Whistler's Green, and we would certainly do
that here, too, or at least that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You're going to have more
units here?
Page 104
March 26, 2002
MR. LAW: Well, per unit so you'll have more landscaping, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's what I meant.
MR. LAW: But it does spread out among the buildings, so I
can't warrant to you that the density in terms of planting or mislead
you in any way; it's going to be very similar. The -- first of all, let me
say this, this project has been built. It was finished in August --
pardon me, in early 2000, and the -- it really in a couple of years the
plants that are out there will grow substantially. That's, I guess, all I
can say about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other questions
before we go--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- I realize that maintenance or
management companies have much to do with how your property
looks and problems that it incurs, but it seems that they've had quite a
management problem over at Whistler's Cove. I sent for records
from code enforcement and from-- from the Department of
Regulation, you know, DOR, having to do with waste management
and garage pickup and debris and complaints that we receive
incessantly and all of the fines that have been placed continuously on
that project, and I've also sent for some statistics from the sheriffs
office. Now, I agree you've changed management companies a
couple times, but it seems it's rather difficult to keep a project like
that looking presentable, and I hate to add another one just a few feet
down the road when we're already trying to deal with this property.
MR. LAW: Well, let me respond to that. First of all, the code
enforcement issues are almost as far as I know totally related to the
issue of garbage. We have a neighbor who calls every time
somebody leaves a couch out. People do that. It's not right, but they
Page 105
March 26, 2002
do it. They do it on the weekend; the trash isn't picked up. We have
our maintenance man now starting at seven in the morning to go
around and clean things up so when people start driving around they
can see the place has been cleaned up.
It is a difficult problem in any property, and I dare say that I
could sit at any community and if I waited-- every weekend to make
a telephone call, because I happen to live and didn't like anything I
saw over there, you would get quite a few complaints. We try to deal
with it. We're building an enclosure.
We've worked with the appropriate person at the county. We
don't like being charged fines either, so we're motivated to take care
of it. It's not been a true management problem. It's a practical
problem of when people move in and move out. And I will say this
early in the development of these apartment communities there is
more turnover in the first year or two. That comes because you're
trying to rent them up as quick as you can. You try to do as good a
job as you can watching over the people, but when you move that
many people, that many families into a development within a period
of six to eight months, you will have turnover, and that turnover
typically is the time people get rid of their furniture.
And our compactor can't take large pieces of furniture, and that
basically has been the problem. We've had less of a problem in
Whistler's Green, and normally we don't have great problems, and
past the first year we have very few problems. And we're sorry about
the problem there, but it is not truly a debris-ridden property in any
manner. And I think if you go out there -- I looked at it yesterday,
didn't call anybody up and say I'm coming. Every time I'm in Naples
I take a look. I have occasionally myself seen coming on the
weekend seen a couch or something out there that somebody has
dropped off, either on their way out of the apartment or their way
moving in. They don't have to pay for it if they leave it there.
Page 106
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for your honesty. I
appreciate that. And, by the way, that's one of the things we're
dealing with is it's not the only community, but we're dealing with so
many at one time, and what we're trying to do is get a better foot
forward. We're trying to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps, and we
have to do that by -- by getting other types of housing. I was hoping
that this developer would build what the property is already zoned
for.
I'd love to see him do that because we need that type of housing.
We need an owner-occupied home where people can afford to live,
but yet it is just a little bit better, a little medium-classed, but anyway,
I'm glad you were honest. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Ten.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ten speakers. And that concludes
the presentation?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, Commissioner, and then we'll
obviously address any questions or concerns.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And before you start, we
have ten speakers all together. What we're going to do is deal with it
on a five-minute basis per speaker and, of course, you'll have to be
the timer because we don't have a timer that's working; at this point in
time. Not that you're not working, you are. Better clarify that real
quick. You get into trouble.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Matthew Kamieniarz. He
will be followed by Mario Curiale.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pronounce that name, Matty.
MR. KAMIENIARZ: Good afternoon. My name is Matthew
Kamieniarz. I live at 133 East Tamiami Trail, and that's just about a
half mile from 951, Collier Boulevard. I live at Greystone Park.
We have a very dangerous road here of two-lane
Page 107
March 26, 2002
highway for this exit area. Just this past week we had three accidents
at our exit, and it's very difficult for all of our residents, which we
have 500 residents, to get out onto this dangerous highway. From the
looks of the program we have here before us, this loop road will be
approximately, I'm guessing, 1,500 feet from our entrance to the
park, and we're strongly against all of this development on this two-
lane highway.
And I wish to thank you for your consideration.
This is danger -- we are always in position here of trying to exit onto
this dangerous two-way highway. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mario Curiale. He will be
followed by Will Kriz.
MR. OLLIFF: If we could get the next speaker to go ahead and
just come on up and make their way to the podium.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And after we get this process going,
if you feel that someone else has already made the point possibly
more eloquently than you may, you may wish to waive, and we'll go
on to the next speaker. But you're all welcome to speak. Thank you.
MR. CURIALE: Mr. Chairman, before I even start, I would like
to say that the five minutes I don't think is nearly enough for me. I
have a lot of question and I have a lot of information for you guys
maybe you can learn from or maybe you can have a dialogue with.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I suggest you begin then because
you have five minutes.
MR. CURIALE: The first question I have I really disappoint to
the fact the way this whole package has been addressed. We do have
a tremendous amount of housing, affordable housing around the area
of East Naples. East Naples is full with that. Our workforce actually
is East Naples, and most of the housing we have is one on top of one
another. As I see Commissioner Fiala has a good point with that.
Page 108
March 26, 2002
We don't really need any more HUD projects here. We need a
project that's important for people to live in they have decent
housing.
Secondly, I don't know if I missed something here. I come here
late because the meeting was at 1:30. I didn't hear anything about
utilities. That really concerns me tremendously, but before I go today
I would like to ask a question to the attorney who said he notify all
people within 500 feet of the facility. Well, I was about 500 feet of
the facility, and I own quite a bit amount of land over there, and I
haven't heard anything, any application, any notification to me. I'm
right on 41.
Secondly, I am very concerned about the traffic which going to
be increased tremendously. And as we speak right now I have a
major dialogue with the Department of Transportation concern about
safety, concern about ingress and egress from my own property,
which is right now under construction on 41.
Third, I would like also to ask the fact that I was last meeting I
was here, the Planning Commission meeting, and I signed up to
speak. Unfortunately, I had another meeting with the county, and I
missed both meeting at the same time so I didn't have a chance to
bring my points through.
As we -- when we talk about HUD projects, we talk about
taxpayer money. Taxpayer money has to use wisely. When we do
taxpayer money projects, we supposed to include the entire PUD,
include residential, commercial on one-time basis. They use our tax
dollar to build this projects. They sell this projects and move on to
the next community. I think it's time for these people who represent
us to put all cards on the table one time and find out what this
community is going to get within the next couple years.
The next question I have is Grady Minor, the engineer. I called
them up on the last meeting, and I had a meeting in the hallway here,
Page 109
March 26, 2002
and we discussed something about utilities. And he called me back
the following day, and he said that the -- they will retreat the
application, not going forward because they had some changes to be
made. I left it at that.
There is few more questions I would like to bring up is, as to the
area that we sat and grew right now is so potentially that all the
community can benefit, so all the community can be heard. If we
bring this point in time and major development which is a spread of
heavy commercial such a thing big-box store within the facility
which we already have in brighten area town center, and we gonna
put another two big boxes down here, before you know we going to
paralyze the whole Marco Island market because we already have
about 40 vacancy in commercial. Those businesses can barely
survive during the summertime. So I would like to see that you guys
really put these two thoughts together and find out we really come to
a solution that we all can benefit from. And I hope my five minutes
is up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, they're not.
MR. CURIALE: I have more time?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're doing very good.
MR. CURIALE: I'm doing very good?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MR. CURIALE: I would like to see -- five years ago I lived in
Eagle Creek for about three and a half years. In 1992 -- '93 we had a
major storm. We had about three feet of water in Eagle Creek and,
believe me, across the street I felt so sorry for those people that
actually the trailer park was floating. Now, if we know that what we
tried to do and we tried to make a major impact on our community,
we not only deprive the value of the community, but also we put an
integration of a blight to the area within a facility here. For example,
in Chicago, New York, New York, New Jersey, 45 years been dead,
Page 110
March 26, 2002
45 why? Because all this housing they be put in one place. Nobody
wants low-income housing next to my house. I don't want the guy
living next to me.
We make policies. Yes, we need to have these, but don't get it
next to my house. So the question is, we should not live that way
anymore. I don't care how much money we have -- I have or you
have. We all live the same way. We not all be lucky the same way.
We are not be treated differently, but we are human, so let's do
something right for everybody.
I was very disappointed the fact we have Victoria Fall housing
be put in there. I supplied them some material. I own a building
supply outlet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap
it up now.
MR. CURIALE: Does anybody want to give me more time?
You want to give me more time?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't do that, sir. Sir-- sir, it's not
allowed. Your five minutes are up. I'll let you wrap up with your
final statement. You wanted to quit a few minutes ago, and I gave
you the opportunity to keep going.
MR. CURIALE: I'm going to bring this up to -- for 30 seconds.
Victoria Falls, we bring in a small affordable housing over there such
call Humanity. Then we pass an ordinance in the county that no
pickup trucks and no commercial vehicles can be parked up front.
There's no garage in there. Where are these people going to park?
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Will Kriz, and he will be
followed by Keith Tompkins.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hard act to follow, Will.
Page 111
March 26, 2002
MR. KRIZ: I know it is. It's tough. Good afternoon,
Commissioners. My name is Will Kriz, K-r-i-z. I'm a director of one
of the condominium associations at Eagle Creek, and I'm here to
speak on behalf of the several homeowner associations that represent
the residents of Eagle Creek. Several other elected homeowner
representatives are here with me this afternoon as are some individual
homeowners. I'd like them to raise their hands if they would.
Eagle Creek is a community of more than 400 homes on the
west side of 951 also known as Collier Boulevard. It's main entrance
is approximately a quarter mile south of 41, and it's directly across
951 from the 84-acre tract of land that includes the parcel that's under
consideration before you today. Development of the entire 84-acre
tract -- let me back up.
Last September the petitioner requested a meeting with Eagle
Creek residents to outline his plans. The plan he presented to several
residents and club members including myself called for development
of the entire 84-acre tract with commercial development occupying
roughly the east half and commercial development occupying the
west half. None of us at the meeting recall any mention that the
apartments to be built on the site were to be affordable housing or
low income -- or for low-income occupants. His plan didn't appear to
be objectionable to Eagle Creek, so we voiced no objection to the
plan at the time. We didn't express support for the plan at that time
either.
Planners presented to us -- the plan that was presented to us is
different from the proposal before you today in that that plan was for
the entire tract. The petitioner did not return to Eagle Creek to advise
us of this change. It, therefore, appears to us he is going to present
his plan to us when it looks like it might be favorable to us, but he
avoids us when the amended plan is likely to meet with our
disapproval. Parcel with such a petition lies more than 500 feet from
Page 112
March 26, 2002
951, so we did not receive notice of this -- of this hearing today, and
we only heard of it accidentally.
The several homeowner associations that comprise Eagle Creek
strongly object to changing the current zoning to the proposed PUD.
What we object to is the development of low-income housing. We
recognize that many low-income earners are decent members of the
community, but there is an element that is attracted to low-income
housing that is involved in drugs, gangs, and criminal behavior. One
needs to look no further than a couple of miles from Eagle Creek on
U.S. 41 at Whistler's Cove, a low-income apartment complex, to see
the kinds of problems that this kind of development attracts.
Whistler's Cove has been a constant law enforcement problem for the
sheriffs department, and it's been a problem to county code
enforcement as well. We don't want similar problems across the road
from Eagle Creek.
East Naples has been making significant strives toward
improving its neighborhoods. Whistler's Cove runs counter to that
trend and approval of-- of this proposed development would --
would just be more of the same, and it'll reverse that trend and lead to
more crime, blight, and increased traffic.
Speaking of traffic, the intersection of 41 and
951 is one of the most heavily traveled in Collier County with some
of the highest accident figures in the county. Numerous vehicles now
cut through the shops at Eagle Creek to avoid the intersection, but in
doing so they increase the likelihood of an accident in that shopping
center. Anyone who travels through that intersection knows that the
volume of traffic there far exceeds its capacity. Any traffic study that
concludes otherwise certainly could not have taken the entire picture
into account.
The traffic generated by 224 apartments when added to the
traffic that will accompany the further commercial and residential
Page 113
March 26, 2002
development of the entire 84-acre tract, not to mention other
developments in the vicinity either planned or already approved, will
result in total gridlock. It's not logical the traffic impact is assessed
on piece meal basis. A road through the tract once commercial
development is in place to connect 951 and 41 will do nothing
whatsoever to alleviate the backup of northbound vehicles on 951
waiting to turn onto -- onto 41 towards Naples.
Development of 84 acres at the level possible under the existing
zoning would, of course, result in some traffic as well, but certainly
not to the extent that this development when completed would --
would generate. For these reasons the homeowner associations at
Eagle Creek urge you to vote no on this petition. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. KRIZ: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. You made the statement
that you don't want this affordable housing in your neighborhood
because, you know, drugs and, you know, different kind of people.
MR. KRIZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask you, you're a golf
course community, Eagle Creek. MR. KRIZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do your residents cut the grass
over there in the golf course? MR. KRIZ: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And probably what
happens is a lot of these people that live in these affordable housing
is the people that cut the grass. Now, I know that Commissioner Fiala
is trying to get those types of people to live inside a community like
Eagle Creek when we go forward to approve it, but we can't get it in
Eagle Creek anymore?
MR. KRIZ: No, you can't get it in Eagle Creek.
Page 114
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we can provide land for
these people to come over and cut your golf course. (Moans from audience.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That will be enough.
Interesting point, but --
MR. KRIZ: There's no question -- there's no question that these
people have to live somewhere.
What we're concerned about is the element this kind of housing
attracts, and that's the drugs, gang, and criminal behavior that
accompany them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I live very closely to the one
example that we see on here, and we have absolutely no problem
with the people that live there. They're the school teachers, the sheriff
deputies, and the people that service this community. I don't think
that it's attracting that type of element you're talking about. It's
usually the kind of housing that is super low in price that doesn't
screen their tenants, that doesn't take the same cares.
I -- on the crime issue and the issue you're bringing up, I
personally take offense at it. I really do. I think you're -- you're
taking a part of this population with an income level that's a little bit
below what yours may be and some other people and you're -- you're
showing a prejudice towards them.
MR. KRIZ: No, I -- I said that we recognize that most of the
people that live there --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just so long as they don't live near
yOU.
MR. KRIZ: -- are decent people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They live all over around us as a
matter of fact. I wanted to point out and -- something I haven't said,
but I'll say it now as long as we're talking about this. One of the
problems that we're suffering with in East Naples is that a lot of the
Page 115
March 26, 2002
young yuppy families with children are moving out to the north end
because they don't want their kids in our school, and I'm hoping that
by -- by integrating a different level also into our area -- yes, we're
known around the county as a-- as a workforce community, but by
adding another dimension we might be able to keep some of these
yuppy professional families in East Naples. I've heard people say
they wouldn't even want to live in our area, or they've said, "Well,
down in your area." What's wrong with our area?
But we do have to add -- it's -- smart growth will tell you and
Tom will tell you this, smart growth says you cannot put all of one
kind of housing in one kind of area. You must mix it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you go. I kind of hope that we
don't think that the people that live in the mobile home parks over
there, the different areas there we're not equating them with low-cost
housing. We're not trying to say that they're also criminals and
subject to drug use. You know this is an unfair characterization that
I'm really having a problem with here.
MR. KRIZ: I never suggested that all the people there would be
that kind. I said that kind of housing attracts the problems, and we
certainly have a history at Whistler's Cove. The sheriff's department
on constant call there to deal with-- to deal with crimes and drugs
and gangs. You've got a code enforcement problem there constantly.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Keith Tompkins, and he will
be followed by Ken Drum.
MR. TOMPKINS: I just want to address a couple quick issues
because some of my issues have already been addressed, and I'll
make it very brief. I am the property manager for the homeowners
associations within Eagle Creek and have been there for eight and a
half years now. We're kind of coming late to this, and I love they
Page 116
March 26, 2002
sent out notices to people within 500 feet of-- of 951. It just didn't --
I don't know, it didn't register. I don't know how else to put it. We
did just -- we didn't know about it, for what it's worth, so we're
coming to this a little bit late.
Nonetheless, there are concerns of the homeowners of Eagle
Creek about the tripling or potentially quadrupling of the density of
the land already zoned for single-family three when our infrastructure
is really overtaxed, we feel, out there. I know about the formulas,
and I know that those formulas are used in designing the roads and
they have to be addressed for the approval process. But I'm talking
about, practically speaking, when you go out there and look at it,
there's a formula that it meets. And then when you go out there and
look at the traffic problems, that's a whole different matter and a
standard that I, at least, hope weighs somewhere in your decision
there.
The same thing with the schools as well. You don't sit here and
approve schools in this room; the school board does that. But please
understand the impact that the communities when you triple and
quadruple the density that it has on the schools. I've had personal
experience with that at Lely Elementary School. This is going to
further tax Manatee Elementary School just with the number of
children, and they're already having classes in the middle school
because the elementary school is so large. They've so outgrown their
capacity there.
With respect to property rights in general, I wanted to address
the people of Eagle Creek invested in East Naples. They invested in
Eagle Creek, many over a decade ago, several hundred thousand
dollars of their own money because they believed in it out there.
Before the roads were widened, before the shopping centers were
built, before much was out there they invested money out there, and
to their chagrin, unfortunately, things have come along that have
Page 117
March 26, 2002
caused density levels to be greatly increased in the area.
And I -- quite honestly, I think the existing property owners certainly
have a right that when they buy land and see that it's been RSF-3
across the street, that they would have a reasonable expectation that it
would be something similar to that and not something much, much
greater than that. So I ask that you consider the feelings of the
current property owners as well in addition to the new ones.
Lastly, as you well know, I played an active role in the
campaign two years ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, but with a
couple of you obviously we spent a lot of nights at the candidate
forums and listening to you answer questions of constituents and
potential voters. And at that time I didn't really hear anybody saying,
"Yes, if you elect me, I will vote to triple and quadruple density on
RSF-3 land for housing projects in our county." I don't recall that. I
could be wrong.
I didn't see every one of them, but I don't recall it being an issue.
But what I do recall, the overarching theme behind the campaigns for
the new candidates, that they felt there needed to be a change, that the
prior boards had made decisions that had saddled future boards and
handcuffed you in making decisions about how to control the growth
and to manage growth in this county in the future. And I just say to
you that that was then and this is now. This is your decision to make.
This is -- this is the new board, and I ask that you when making
your decision consider the future that you do have a chance to alter
the future by cutting down on density and not taking three-unit per
acre land and so dramatically increasing the density. So you do have
the ability to make a difference here. I ask that. We ask that you
reject the petition and simply have the land built on it for what it is
zoned for today. That's it. Thank you. Appreciate it. (Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Mr. Ken Drum, and he will be followed by
Page 118
March 26, 2002
Stanley Bartkowiak.
MR. DRUM: I rise, Commissioners, to speak on behalf of the
East Naples Civic Association and urge that this project either be
drastically amended or totally defeated. I don't want to beat a dead
horse, but I do want to make a few points as to what was made in the
presentation here. For example, the statement was made by the
developer's representatives that they had 500 units and that they were
actually reducing the density. That is reminiscent of when my wife
and my daughter come home from a shopping trip and say how much
money I saved. They never had 500 units in the first place. They had
three to an acre, and I want to say that this project -- I do want to say
this project in its present form is unacceptable. I think some things
can be done there to the land if the zoning is followed.
The other thing that developer's representatives said is that,
"Well, out in the future we're going to have big-box stores, and we're
going to have single-family homes." Previous commissions -- not
this one, but previous ones approved many things that never came
into fruition. I don't know how many times since I've lived here I've
driven around and seen the sign "Coming Soon." I saw one for the
hospital about seven years ago "Coming Soon." It's now Naples
Lakes. And usually the sign's all weather-beaten. I've seen signs on
the comer of Rattlesnake and 951 that said a shopping center was
coming soon two years before I saw the sign.
So I would urge that we take a careful look at projects like this
and not necessarily agree with the phasing of a project. We should
see the whole thing. Those big-box stores very easily could become
mini warehouses or something like that as the developer sells out and
moves on someplace else.
Public services in East Naples, frankly, in the past have become
politicized, and I'm sorry to say that our area, East Naples, has lost in
the political game. We have a 3,000-square-foot library. We have no
Page 119
March 26, 2002
swimming pool. We have a lot of other public facilities. Our parks
are not equal to what other parks are across the county.
What is being done by putting this heavy density into one area is
it's actually raising the taxes of the property owners who already live
there. I spoke with a board member of the East Naples Fire District,
and he told me that they were going to have to raise our taxes because
of the number of false alarms, of the number of calls that they had to
make in an area where the area is more dense than the rest of the
community. I know there's an impact fee that you collect when new
construction occurs, but it's the ongoing costs that you're going to
saddle the residents with if you cause too much of a burden on the
public facilities that we have.
Finally, I'd like to say that since I've become familiar with this
project, it has been rushed through with a lot of faulty paperwork and
a lot of changes. And I'm told the reason for that is that there's a
deadline for collecting these credits, which I believe, is in a few days.
The developer would collect several million dollars in tax credits if
they can meet this deadline. My opinion is if you have something
that's wrong you should take a look at it rather than try to make it
something that will be acceptable only on the surface.
So what I would urge you to do is to take a look -- a hard look at
this project and the reasons, the motivations behind it, and at this
point either vote the project down or vote to have it go back and
Thank
maybe they can amend it so it's satisfactory to the residents.
you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Stanley --
MR. BARTKOWIAK: Bartkowiak.
MS. FILSON: Thank you. He will be followed by David Ellis.
MR. BARTKOWIAK: My name's Stanley Bartkowiak, and I'm
Page 120
March 26, 2002
a resident of Holiday Manor Mobile Park. I just want to touch briefly
right off the bat about the traffic situation, and then I'll get on to
others.
Common sense will tell us that the addition of a housing project
at the intersection of 951 and 41 will only add to the existing traffic
congestion. We have an ambulance and a fire station a half-mile up
the road there. You never know when there might be a life-or-death
situation, and for those vehicles to get through that area of 951 and 41
sometime it's a -- it's a real fiasco.
Third item is this area is also an emergency evacuation area.
The people from Marco and the Isle Capri, this is the only way out
for those people. Who knows when an emergency might arise.
Now onto the project itself. I'll just say I'm a concerned senior
citizen and not against affordable housing at all. I live in this senior-
citizen developed area of mobile home park such as Greystone,
Henderson Creek, Holiday Manor and also developments of luxury
homes and condos such as Eagle Creek, Falling Waters, and Lely, not
to compare incomes or lifestyles. Predominantly we're just senior
citizen oriented. Our main concern right now as a senior citizen is
our health and enjoyment for the rest of our life.
We do not want to add a crime factor by having a low-income
housing, which as the saying goes, low income and crime go
together. We don't need this or even the possibility of this, and if you
have to have affordable housing in this area, why can't it be for
assisted living for senior citizens? We owe them that and they earned
it. Let's keep this a senior community.
A project -- here you're talking about housing -- low-income
housing, who would control whether it be two or three families living
in the same unit? How would we know this? It could turn out to be a
slum area after a while. We don't need this project, and I've also
heard of a lot of promises being made to a lot of people. And don't
Page 121
March 26, 2002
forget the old saying that is promises are made to be broken. Thank
you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: David Ellis, and he will be followed by John
Juliano.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I put my name
in to speak prior to when we had a report previously. I just wanted to
come back as the chairman of the Affordable Housing Commission
and remind you that we did submit a letter. We met with the folks
that are developing this community and really didn't come today to
speak to many of the -- the -- the outside aspects of transportation and
those things, but to remind the commission about the certain need for
affordable and workforce housing in Collier County and to ask your
consideration on those matters.
As we looked at it, a couple of things that did pique the interest
of the Affordable Housing Commission was where the location of the
project did offer proximity to Marco Island, as well as to the City of
Naples, in terms of actual location, and we were pleased with the
developer's concessions moving toward owner-occupied housing.
We think that's a very important element of what can happen in
Collier County. Again, thank you very much, and I just wanted to
bring you that and remind you that we submitted that to your
package. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
MS. FILSON: John Juliano, and he will be followed by Bob
Reed.
MR. JULIANO: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is
John Juliano. I've been a resident of Holiday Manor for the past 15
years, and I am currently the president of the co-op. We all feel at
Holiday Manor that everyone is entitled to a decent place to live, and
Page 122
March 26, 2002
affordable housing is an item that is needed. We feel that what is
happening now is that East Naples and this immediate area appears to
be a dumping ground for affordable housing.
I would like to state from what is in the executive summary
under the Growth Management Plan consistency and under future
land use element, the purpose of this subdistrict is to provide
transitional densities between the conservation areas and the urban
designed areas. Residential development in this district is based upon
the county's density rating system as contained in the future land use
element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. According
to the density rating system, residential development on Henderson
Creek property has a base density of four units per acre. The
property is subject to a base density reduction of one unit because it
is within the county's designated traffic congestion area. And we've
all heard from speakers it's a dangerous intersection, and here it is
quoted in the executive summary; however, the developer is taking
advantage of the need of the county for affordable housing and
coming in to use this area to gain the extra bonus units.
The developer is proposing a two-plan phase. Build 224 units
and if it flies and we can get into that preserve area we will build the
salable units. I think what you need to look at before you move
forward is how much of that total acreage is build able and then split
it between rental and salable. What may happen is the salable portion
that I hear Commissioner Fiala saying she'd like to have in this area
that may go down the tubes and then there is no salable property that
is affordable. I think that's an issue that really needs to be
considered.
We have met twice with the petitioner. They did come out to
Holiday Manor on Friday. One of our concerns that we were really
hammering at was water and flooding. Unfortunately, Holiday
Manor was built in 1968 before controls were in place, and we are
Page 123
March 26, 2002
learning and we have to learn to live with our flooding. We have
been told by Grady Minor, that they will drain water away from us,
our situation will improve, but can they control Mother Nature?
What happens if we do flood excessively because there's an
engineering miscalculation or this project is approved because it's
thought to be good.
Is there a liability factor? We can accept the certain amount of
normal flooding that we have to live with, but if it increases where
are we, underwater? I have at times in one of my previous homes in
Holiday Manor come back in the fall and found a 6-inch watermark
in my Florida room, and I'm four streets in from 951. So, you know,
that is a serious issue.
Yes, we are concerned about the type of people that would live
in a congested area such as 224 apartments. Would we have, you
know, problems of security? We live in a very complacent
community right now. The gentleman from Eagle Creek said they
have an investment. We do too. It's public record. We became a co-
op in 1996, and we paid $6 million for that property. This does not
include the mobile homes.
It's just the property. Out of that we have 312 home sites, and
we have 188 of those are the shareholders. We have a $3 million
mortgage to pay, so we want to protect our property.
I would like to see -- and as Commissioner Fiala said, this is
zoned for three families per acre. Let's build affordable houses there.
I don't think I could afford some of the houses in Naples. And I
know some of our residents would not be able to live in Holiday
Manor year-round if they weren't in a mobile home park. We try to
be a good community, and we take as much of our money and we put
it back into making our park look decent and to be attractive.
We do realize that you as commissioners have a dual role. You
have a responsibility to the petitioner because he has property rights,
Page 124
March 26, 2002
but we also feel you have a responsibility to the public. And please
consider the public's input. Thank you. (Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Reed, and your final
speaker will be Cliff Ludwig.
MR. REED: Hi, Commissioners. Good afternoon to you. I'm
past president of the Holiday Manor co-op.
As John said, we have 312 units there. Seventy families live there
the year round. Some of them are 60, 70, and 80 years old. As it was
said, that is a 55-and-older park.
I have some pictures here, and I'd love for you to see them. This
is the spring of last year. Is there any way we can show that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Filson, you might want to put
them on the viewer so everyone can see them.
MR. REED: The first picture there shows you the water running
across Henderson Creek Drive right at 951. You can see the water
running across there, and you can imagine -- and I'll show the next
picture if you will, please. That is water going towards the creek
from Henderson Creek right along 951 trying to get out -- get out.
That's all the water that is.
This is one of our streets there. Can you imagine living on a street
that is flooded like that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Looks like a canal.
MR. REED: It is. That's waterfront property. That's high
property.
(Laughter.)
MR. REED: And look at this one (indicating). This is another
street farther down. This is another one of our streets.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have to say, you know, all of
this flooding and we never hear you complain about it. I mean, I
didn't even know this was going on, bless your heart.
Page 125
March 26, 2002
MR. REED: Bob Vaggy, who is the first president of the co-op,
he and I come up to the county and talked and talked and talked
trying to get something done about that. They said that's state
property. You know, the ditch down there belongs to the state. So
we started working on the state. Last year the state did come down,
surveyed it. Said, "It's okay." But they said, "We will put in larger
culverts." The larger culverts did help that, goes underneath
Henderson Creek, but you can see it didn't help that much.
Now they talk about building this property next door to us, and
it's -- they say they're going to have fill it four feet high in order to
build up there according to the code. Then they're going to put lakes
out here. Now, they originally talked about 82 acres. They're going
to have to put eight acres of lakes out there. When those lakes get
full and they release that water, the only place they can release it is
through Henderson Creek. That spring water was coming out of
Henderson Creek right down on our streets. Now, if they're dumping
their water into Henderson Creek and it's full, where's that water
going to go? Right into our park.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you're asking a good
question. How about water management? We got a representative --
from storm water management rather.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There he is.
MR. BELLOWS: John Boldt is here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While John Boldt is coming up,
just a question, sir. This was last year; correct?
MR. REED: This last spring, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the spring?
MR. REED: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. REED: I can't tell you what month it was, but we did have
the television people out there. And if you remember if you was
Page 126
March 26, 2002
watching any of the television, you would have seen it on television.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just sit at home and
watch TV.
MR. REED: I bet you do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you remember the rainfall -
- the amount of rainfall at that time?
MR. REED: Yes, sir. One day it was five. The next it was six.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: For the record, John Boldt, Collier County storm
water management director. I don't want to debate the dates, but I
thought this was the fall event. I thought your pictures were from
September.
MR. REED: No, sir. Those were --
MR. BOLDT: Okay.
MR. REED: I'm sorry. I could be wrong.
MR. BOLDT: It's sort of irrelevant because there is a
longstanding history of flooding in this area. Quite honestly, like I
said, it's developed back in the '60s. There were no rigid standards
back in those days. The property was not elevated. It was built at
grade. It's about four and a half feet above sea level.
There's a couple problems. First of all, Henderson Creek where
all this water eventually ends up has thousands of acres of drainage
area that originate way up north ofi-75 near the landfill, work its way
down through the Belle Meade area into Henderson Creek under 41,
and then goes -- at that point it goes tidal. And when you have to
depend on tide as your discharge you're at the whims of Mother
Nature, high tides seasonally, wind driven, storm driven. Quite often,
either the water doesn't run downhill. It's running up the creek as
opposed to going out with the tide, and when you're at this elevation,
only a foot or so above some of these high tides, there's just not
elevation difference to move the water out.
Page 127
March 26, 2002
I think one of the big problems he's identified is U.S. 41. Used
to be a two-lane road. When they four-laned it, they had to meet
certain water-quality requirements. And they -- rather than put
detention lakes in that area what they did is they made large swales
on both sides of the road. They purposely put little check dams in it
to create water-quality treatment areas, and this has caused a -- I call
it a sluggish condition. The water doesn't flow freely from this area
into Henderson Creek, but even at its best Henderson Creek when it
has a high tide is a standoff and either runs up stream.
I guess bottom line for me is with or without this project we're
talking about, this new affordable housing project, the surrounding
area has flooding problems, and they'll continue to have flooding
problems as long as they're at grade. There's really not much you can
do when you're that low in elevation, and with or without this project
would make very little difference, insignificant difference if you add
this water to the existing situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they wouldn't have a greater
amount of flooding because of this project?
MR. BOLDT: It would be so insignificant you could not
measure it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let me ask you this, Mr.
Boldt. In your judgment would another project possibly take some of
this water out of this area?
MR. BOLDT: You're referring to the new project?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MR. BOLDT: In essence it is. We have requirements here. We
talked about this predevelopment, post-development situation. Here's
a piece of property today in its raw state will discharge so much
water in a peak discharge. Today it just kind of sheet flows onto
Holiday Manor. This project is going to be bermed. It's going to go -
Page 128
March 26, 2002
- all their storm water will be directed to a lake. It'll go to a control
structure.
The control structure will have an orifice, a V-notch or a round
pipe. It'll limit the discharge, the peak discharge during that 25-year
3-day storm, not only to a predevelopment but actually would cut it
down to -- numbers from about 2/10s or 3/10s of a CFS, cubic feet
per second, per acre down to. 15. That's the ordinance we have. So it
goes from about 3/10s to .15. In reality it cuts it in about a half the
peak discharge off this project, which contributes to the height of the
flow.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MR. BOLDT: That's not exactly layman's terms but it's the only
way I could put it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Reed, we took about a
minute of your time. Do you want to continue?
MR. REED: The only thing I -- it doesn't make sense to me
when you're having a rain like that and the water goes into the ground
some of it, and I know some of it is going to have to run off, but
when you go in there and put blacktop, concrete, and what have you,
and then go back and hold it, and then release it, where in the hell's it
going to go? It's got to come back. It's going out to the creek, but the
creek's coming back into us. Thank you. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Cliff Ludwig.
MR. LUDWIG: Hi. Cliff Ludwig. I live in Holiday Manor. I'd
like that guy from the water management to come down in my
Florida room when we get 3 inches of rain. Bring your boots by the
way. If we get 100 gallons of water from this project, I'm going up
an inch in my Florida room. This is totally, totally ridiculous. I wish
these people that are in charge of judging this traffic problem,
Page 129
March 26, 2002
judging this water problem would come down in a rainstorm or come
down at four o'clock in the afternoon when Marco gets out and take a
look around.
The traffic problem, I don't care what these engineers say,
they're full of malarkey. The traffic problem is horrendous. You put
another light up 100 yards from my -- from our road, Henderson
Creek, my God it'll take us till six o'clock. We'll be two hours
waiting to get out. It is -- it is ridiculous and they're going to put all
these stores in. You're going to drag thousands more cars in here.
Every single day there's accidents there, constantly every day. And a
water problem, he talks about four or five inches of water. Look at
the way we're getting flooded now. If there is any chance that we get
any more water, we're going to float away.
Jana Ashbach from the TV station was slopping around in my
Florida room last year. I had my furniture jacked up a foot in the air.
I can't even put furniture out there. And these engineers are going to
tell me, "Oh, don't worry about it. You're going to be all right." No
not in my book.
I tell you, I want you people to take a good hard look at this
project because we could be in serious trouble. We could be in
serious trouble here. If the one engineer calculates something a little
wrong, we're going -- we're going floating down the river. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we take a five-
minute break since we're losing some of our commissioners right
now and reconvene in five more minutes. Thank you. (Short recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats, please. All right.
Mr. Mudd. Okay. We will continue. Are you making a final report;
Page 130
March 26, 2002
is that what you want to do at this point?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just a couple quick comments in
response to some of the public comment. First of all, I wanted to
clarify on the whole loop-road issue. When it's ultimately built, it's
going to be a collector level road, so it will accommodate the traffic
from 951 and provide a way around the intersection when it's
ultimately built.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While you're on that topic,
you're going to work with our transportation department and let them
determine the collector road and where it is? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also while we're on that topic,
can we get that through road early on when this is being done?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Commissioners, I think what I
heard from your -- from your transportation staff is that they would
prefer that we not put any traffic on 951 now until we can come
through with traffic improvements, which we plan on doing. We
plan on doing traffic improvements to the intersection along with our
commercial project. We know that that's the critical issue when the
commercial comes. So we will not be blindsided on that.
I think traffic -- I just wanted to summarize quickly. Your staff
at the 500-unit level, agree traffic was not an issue. We're at 224
right now, and we will have to come back to you for an amendment
to get the 136 for-sale product as well. So right now Phase 1 is 224
units, and we will have to come back for the other 136, so we'll have
to deal with if there's a traffic issue then. But the deal with it as of
right now 224 is a lot less than 500, so I would think that the traffic
issue is nothing but better at this time.
Drainage, I think you heard not only from Grady Minor, our
respected engineer, but your own storm water management, Mr.
Boldt, who is a professional engineer, that our project will not harm
Page 131
March 26, 2002
our neighbors and, in fact, will make this situation better.
Mr. Juliano made the point about what do you get if we don't go
forward with the single family -- I'm sorry, I keep saying that -- I
mean, owner occupied. What you get is you get a 20-acre preserve.
We're taking the risk that we can deliver before-sale product. You'll
get a 20-acre preserve if all we -- if we took a bad risk. You'll get
224 units on 45 acres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you own the property now?
MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you own the property now?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We will. We have it under contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And then you're going to
sell this portion off; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We are going to be -- yes, we are going
to do like many other developers in Collier County. We are going to
stick to what we do best which is commercial, and we will sell the
residential. But we brought you the guy whose got the contract to
buy the residential. So you have seen the product that we are
committed to bringing to this property on a multi-family product.
Other than that there was some other comments that were made
that I don't think really warrant a response to. And other than that, if
you have any more specific questions regarding our product --
project, we'd be happy to answer it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't really have a question. I
want to talk to my fellow commissioners. The first thing we promised
our community and our own constituents is that we would implement
concurrency.
It was extremely important to all of us, and it starts with traffic,
and we must continue that. We've been -- we've pushed along that
way. It's been tough turning this boat around, but we've -- we've
Page 132
March 26, 2002
managed to start the process. I feel we must continue to -- to guide
and manage our growth responsibly.
And having said that, fellow commissioners, I'm going to vote to
deny this rezone application because it does not comply with Policy
1.4 and because this is a traffic-congested area, already overtaxed,
and I cannot add in good conscious this tremendous burden to our
already deficient road.
And I respect your property rights, and I hope that you'll build
the three units per acre because I'll tell you we can use homes like
that in East Naples, and we'd love to welcome you there. And also
this area happens to already be zoned for an area with the traffic
congested road at 3.1. That was convoluted. So I support efforts in
all of your areas, and I would ask you to support this -- this vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thank you for the support, but
I want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I need a second before you can
discuss.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't catch it as a
motion. Wait just one second. We have a motion from
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it died for the lack of a
second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hope not. I hope there's
somebody else--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to comment on
your comments if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You lost me, but go ahead,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't I second her motion for
Page 133
March 26, 2002
discussion purposes only. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. Okay. Then we have a
second. Let's go ahead. Now discussion, Commissioner Henning.
MR. MANALICH: Before you proceed, are we closing the
public hearing at this point, or are there going to be additional public
comment?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got a feeling there's going to be
additional public comments the way we're going at this point in time.
MR. MANALICH: I mean, you may want to reserve your
discussions --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can reopen the public hearing if
we so desire, correct?
MR. MANALICH: Well, my advise would be to conclude the
public hearing portion then finish your deliberation on the motions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Once we close it, we can still
address questions to the petitioner and staff; correct?
MR. MANALICH: Well, I think you should do that now as part
of the public hearing and then leave your deliberations on the
motions without further input.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I have a question of the
petitioner then.
MR. MANALICH: I would recommend you do that prior to
closing the public hearing and defer action on the motion then.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The gentleman from Naples or
Holiday Manor, Stanley Bart (sic), there's a real need in every
community for affordable senior citizens. Is there any possibility
under the density bonuses (sic) grants that you could deliver some
product like this?
MR. YOVANOVICH: At this location or at other locations? I
know there is -- this is not the only project I worked on related to
Page 134
March 26, 2002
affordable housing. I do know that in other -- there is another one
targeted for seniors that will be brought to you in another area of the
county. So people are attempting to meet that market need, and if it's
not on this site it would be on a different site. So the answer to the
question is yes. We have not considered it on this particular site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We focused on what your Shimburg
Study will tell you is that you're almost -- I'll give you the exact
numbers because I don't want to -- back when your housing element
and your housing element -- your backup said by the year 2000 you
needed another 400 -- 4,973 affordable rental units by the year 2000.
That's just rental units. And you needed another 9,500 affordable
owner occupied. This was all by the year 2000. I don't think you've
met that number. So I think there's clearly the need for both areas
that we are trying to meet, the rental and the owner occupied.
And we are -- we are trying to be innovative and make -- meet
the need, and we'll continue to try to do it in other areas of the county
as well. Our firm has been involved in two projects in the last year,
one here and another one up off of-- near Vanderbilt Beach Road.
And I will tell you that today's resistance is no different wherever you
try it. There is tremendous resistance wherever these projects go, and
we -- we are not ashamed of the product we're delivering. We think
it is a -- it is not substandard housing as some people have indicated
that it is. It is safe and decent housing for people who deserve safe
and decent housing.
And, yes, to answer your question, seniors could move in now to
our product.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. All right.
The storage-of-fill issue is only going to be for this affordable
housing project because that's the only thing we're seeing now. Now,
you're going to dig a retention area.
Page 135
March 26, 2002
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long is that fill going to
stay on the property?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, when we dig the lake, it will be --
that fill will be spread along the site, so it's not going to be there for a
year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you don't -- there's not
going to be any storage there then?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Minimal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me just ask on your
question, Commissioner Henning, it says in the -- in the paperwork
here that not only will they have their own fill storage, but they're
going to bring it in from other lands that they own and lease to be
stored on this property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if you remember the
discussion before we went to lunch, we corrected that and amended it
during the conversation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that amended?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, we bring fill to the site
to fill because we've got to raise the level of our site. There is going
to be fill dumped by a dump truck that will be -- this is in every PUD.
This is not unique to our PUD. This issue, frankly, is the first time
I've ever heard this discussed as an issue related to a PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're here to do the best
job that we can for the citizens of Collier County.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I appreciate that, and we're
willing to work through that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The people here today are
concerned. We want to address their concerns under the guidelines
of the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I agree. We're trying to work
Page 136
March 26, 2002
through that issue, and we'll -- we'll spread it out as quick as we can
as soon as we bring the fill in because it's going to be built
concurrent. The fill will be coming concurrent with the development
of our site. I hope that clarifies it on the record that it's not-- it's
coming to sit here and wait. It will be part of the development that
the fill is coming in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One final question, and then I'll
be quiet on this discussion and the motion. The density bonus
agreement for the affordable housing; when is that going to be
delivered and signed?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We've already delivered it and signed.
We'll have to amend it to reduce the number from 500 to 224.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
MR. BELLOWS: IfI may, can I have a clarification of that
point. We're talking about 360 overall. Are we going to have an
affordable housing showing 360 overall with 224 in the first phase?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do it however Mr. Giblin wants me
to do it. If Cormac wants it at 360 right now with 224 being multi-
family and 136 being for sale, we'll do it that way or -- their PUD
will still say we have to come back to the commission before we can
do anything with those 136 units, but we can do it however Mr.
Giblin recommends to evidence those commitments.
MR. BELLOWS: That would be preferable for staff to do it that
way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have to address the traffic one
more time on the two-lane road with -- with a commercial area right
across the street and the people from Greystone already telling us it's
difficult to get out of their property on a two-lane road and now we're
going to have 360 more units, plus there is commercial in front of this
and commercial that they want to build on this two-lane road. Folks,
Page 137
March 26, 2002
this two-lane road cannot accommodate this. I hope you've all been
out there. I hope, Commissioners, you've been out there. I've been
out there three times. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't -- I couldn't even -- I was
right on the site, right on the site where the entrance is, and 2:30 in
the afternoon on a Tuesday I couldn't even get out there. At 2:30
we're not even talking about rush hours here. It's -- the picture that is
painted is -- is not a true picture, and I hope that you're seeing
through that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, your own executive
summary indicates that with the background traffic as Ms. Wolfe has
explained to you, with our project there'll be 7,800 average daily trips
on a road built to accommodate 9,400 trips. Your own -- your own
expert testimony indicates that we -- you can write the check and you
can cash the check, and we are consistent with all of the county's
concurrency requirements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that doesn't take into account
the surrounding facilities like Greystone who has 500 mobile homes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, it does. It does. It takes into
consideration the background traffic by other already approved
developments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our own staff was on the property,
and as I talked to staff they had a problem pulling out of there; isn't
that not correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Certain times, yes.
(Laughter.)
MR. BELLOWS: The clarification to the statement I made
earlier is that when time of the site development plan there'll be
analysis performed whether -- what type of turn lanes and other
intersectional improvements would be required to make it operate
Page 138
March 26, 2002
functionally as it's supposed to. Right now there's no intersection
improvements. It was just vacant land that I was pulling it out on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And I checked with the
state on this particular piece of land because it's only a two-lane
highway. I asked, when would it be widened to accommodate all of
this extra growth. They have no plans in the near future. They have
nothing even on the map, on the drawing board for widening that
road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if-- I don't
know if I'm hearing a bunch of questions from our staff and the
petitioner. I know there's some political comments. I don't know if
you want to close the public hearing and -- and take a vote on the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not yet, Commissioner Henning. I
still haven't had a say in this. I know Commissioner Carter may have
something to ask, and I assume you do, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to go first and I'll follow
you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, go ahead. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If we were to approve your project,
how -- what guarantees do we have that we would have a product
similar to what the pictures were like in Golden Gate?
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you want to, I'll attach those to the
PUD and commit to those right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That -- that, I assume, would
be one of the understood, plus some of the other conditions that were
already put forward by
Mr. Bellows.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- we are committed to that product
and architecture.
Page 139
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And just to show good faith, if we
were to approve this project, the landscaping where you're budgeting
1,400 which is 200 above which is normally there, could we increase
that to 1,8007
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'll wait until we close
the public hearing to go to the rest of it. Do you have any questions
that you would like to ask now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Okay. Anyone else?
Then I am going to close the public
hearing at this time, and the discussion is ours. I want to remind you
that not too long ago we had a good number of people from my
constituent here on Buck Run who had very much concerns that
addressed the same issues along 951 at the other end. And if I'm not
mistaken I believe this commission voted 5-0 on approving it, of
course with certain stipulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was for the second phase down
the road, and here we've got the same conditions to it. You know,
apples and oranges. I don't see where there's that much difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Jim, one of the differences is
in that particular area that workforce housing was being introduced
because there was a lack of it. We don't have a lack of it here. We
have a lack of regular housing, of owner-occupied medium-class
homes, an extreme lack of it as a matter of fact. I was accused of
"not in my backyard" just recently, but heavens to Betsy, that's all our
backyard is. We need to -- we need to introduce a few new elements.
Page 140
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. I
think I know what you're going to say. You'll say it for me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then I don't need to say
it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now we all know. Now we can go
to the next person. How about you, Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know how to follow that
act.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's no following it. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Affordable housing is driven by
the cost of the land. That is Economics 101. Cost of land is going to
tell you where you can build anything. It doesn't take too long to
drive anywhere in Collier County in the immediate urban area that
wherever you go any time of day, morning rush hour, I can point to
places where you got difficulty pulling out on a road where there isn't
a traffic light, but that's reality. So I look at right back to what I said
this morning, you got 224 units, Phase One, that's all that's being
considered today. Anything else that comes in this project has to
come back through the process, and the infrastructure has to be
improved to accommodate anything else new that would go there.
For Holiday Manor I empathize with your flooding, but I will
tell you Forest Lakes years ago had the same problem until they
established their own MSTU in which they began to correct that in
their own community. So there are always options, and I don't see
this project exasperating the flooding. I see it may in some ways help
the flooding. But if you really want to get rid of the flooding it looks
to me you'll have to look at your own local taxing authority as one
option.
So that's all the comments that I have,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go down the line. I'll come
Page 141
March 26, 2002
back to you, Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coyle or
Commissioner Henning. Excuse me, we skipped over you the first
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's still waiting for his
comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I forgot what it was now, so go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know sooner or later that
you'd come to me, so I appreciate it. The -- one person got up and
spoke about remembering the discussion that we had during the
campaign. I can tell you that affordable housing did come up in the
campaign and the need of it here in Collier County. The problem is
that we can't spread it out to one unit per acre. Because of the cost of
land it is driving what we need as far as affordable housing.
I don't like the decision that -- that I have to make here of
increasing density in an area of congestion, and I went through the
Growth Management Plan looking for ways to make it either more
palatable or to deny it, and under the density bonus program that's
something that we need to work on during the amendment of the
Growth Management Plan because I don't want to add and I don't
think anybody here wants to add more congestion in a congested
area. But I don't think the taxpayers want to buy this piece of
property because the rules -- and the Land Development Code and
Growth Management Plan, what drives the decisions that we need to
make, I don't think the taxpayers want to buy this piece of property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would the taxpayers have to
buy it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because just like any land-use
attorney takes a look at the Land Development Code, Growth
Management Plan just like we're supposed to and we deny a project
for no good reason, he goes by the rules, and then we get sued, just
Page 142
March 26, 2002
like we did on -- on -- we made a decision to buy some property on
Goodland. That was the settlement, and it probably was a wise
settlement because now we got some waterfront property for the
residents of Collier County utilizing access to water.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we're not denying them
building. They have their zoning. We certainly are not only
preserving but respecting their property rights by saying, "go to it."
Build your three units, just don't impact any more traffic than these
already deficient roads can handle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Whistler's Cove, if I
remember right, was challenged in the courts. Well, there is two
projects here in Collier County where affordable housing was
challenged. The county never won on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't here then. I don't know.
All I can do is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I came here in 1973, I
think it was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't here to vote on that thing.
I don't know. All I know is the results of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other comment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have a couple more
comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. We've been
ignoring the poor man.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coyle's been shut
out here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry about that. You got to exert
your military authority sometimes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
preface my remarks with support for Commissioner Henning's
position concerning density and impact upon the traffic and what the
Page 143
March 26, 2002
Land Development Code provides. I do -- do not like the density that
is presented by this development. I -- I also do not like the fact that
impact fees will be deferred for seven years.
At a time when we are struggling to get money for building the
necessary roads, we're actually granting deferral of impact fees, and
we're granting quite a lot of them. I think we have approved perhaps
1,000 affordable housing units in the four months I've been here. If I
could find where the developer or the petitioner had failed to comply
with our Growth Management Plan and had failed to follow our Land
Development Code, I would vote against this project, but I can't find
that based upon the testimony of the staff that they have followed the
rules. And -- and as bad as I think the rules are, as long as people
follow the rules, I feel obligated to -- to follow the procedure which
results in fairness.
But I would hope that the commissioners would join me in -- in
reviewing or support me in asking for a review of the affordable
housing process. I think the incentives, quite frankly, are excessive,
and I -- I believe that although such a change would not apply to this
particular development, I think we've got to make sure that we don't
continue to have these problems because we make the -- the
incentives so attractive.
The last thing I'd like to do is ask the attorney if-- if these not --
not-- no, the real attorney.
(Laughter and applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry,
Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I thought the arrows only came
this way, Commissioner, but that was a great shot.
MR. MANALICH: That's nice to hear, because I used to be a
public defender, and they used to say that to me all the time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've talked about a number of
Page 144
March 26, 2002
stipulations here, but these people are going to sell this property. Can
we be sure that these stipulations will follow the ownership?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, again, Marjorie Student, a real
assistant county attorney to answer.
In the PUD document, there's standard language that exists in all
PUD documents that states that the assessors or assigns of the
applicant are bound by the conditions. So it's known by their
knowledge of the PUD document, and that is an ordinance and that is
law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And just to review those
conditions, the ones that are really important for me, there will be no
entrance onto or access on 951 for Phase 1 or Phase 2.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Am I supposed to -- as a former real
assistant county attorney, now a pretend attorney, yes, we have -- we
have committed to that, no access on 951.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You have committed to
sufficient right-of-way to provide an access road to the -- or-- or an
interchange to any commercial facilities that are developed in that
area in the future?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you understand that there is
no obligation -- we are not establishing any obligation today to
approve a commercial development of any kind at any time in the
future?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think we have every reject --
every reason to reject this because of Policy 1.3 in our Growth
Management Plan that does state affordable housing will be
distributed equitably throughout the county, and that's something we
Page 145
March 26, 2002
need to consider. This is concurrency. We have to consider that.
Second of all, folks, if after this place -- we've gotten their -- their
traffic counts, et cetera, and after it's built and we find lo and behold
we're having accidents galore and a lot of traffic problems, we can't
go back and undo what we're doing today. I mean, we have to think
about this vote. This vote affects people's lives, their homes, their
communities and -- and this road system that has no plans to be
widened. Please think of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go down to Commissioner
Carter first, and then we'll come back to you, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I concur with what
Commissioner Coyle said. He said it better than I can say it. I'm
operating under the guidelines, the laws, the ordinances that are in
front of me today. That means we do revisit in the future, but I am
bound -- as I have always said, I will follow process. I'm like a
judge. Sometimes I don't like the decision I have to make, but the
law is the law, and I will make it within that framework.
And I believe what has transmitted here this afternoon and this
morning has indicated to me that the people responsible for this
project are putting in writing, it becomes a document of law to us of
what they can do and can't do. And right back to where I was the
first statement this morning. I'm looking at 224 units, and that's it
until the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I just wanted to respond to
Commissioner Fiala's statement. I agree with her. I don't think we
have the slightest idea how much affordable housing we need in the
county and -- or how much affordable housing we have in the county.
Our definition of affordable housing is very narrow, and I don't think
it accurately -- accurately reflects the housing that is available to
people of lower income. And I would -- would hope that we would
Page 146
March 26, 2002
revisit that and see if we can't refine that process a bit, because if
we're looking out to try to make up a deficit of 27,000 affordable
housing units in Collier County, we're going to be having this kind of
conversation many, many times. And I think that is excessive. I
really do. I think we need to go back and take a look at what we call
affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is there any other comments
because I'd like to call the? Question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more last one, and this is only
hearsay right now, and this is -- the school that's right in that area is
called Manatee School, and it's -- as I mentioned before, it's an F
school. The problem with the school is that I have been told by some
school representatives that the governor has said that if they cannot
bring that up from an F before the end of this year, they're going to
close that school.
Now we're just adding a bunch more kids to that area, and I
don't know where we're going to put them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I'm going to make the
final comment, and then I'm going to call the question. Like you say,
that is hearsay. We don't know, and I'm sure our school board's
going to have to deal with the situation. Past commissions have not
dealt with this situation. It's a very unpopular thing for commissions
to handle. You're dealing with people that aren't here and when they
do get here they probably don't vote.
So logically you went the other way. You would deny these
things just out of sort. You wouldn't give them due consideration,
and you'd pass over them. We made some promises some time ago
that we were going to try to do the right thing by everybody out there,
and as painful as it may be sometimes, we're still trying to do that.
And does it gain us popularity, undoubtedly no. But the thing is is
that we're not doing it for our own selfish gain. We're doing it
Page 147
March 26, 2002
because we believe what we see and have been experiencing.
With that we have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, a second
from Commissioner Coyle to deny the approval of this petition. Is
there any other comments before I ask for the vote? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that if you're in favor of
denying the petition, so state now by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If you're opposed state aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Four. I'm sorry,
Commissioner Coyle, did you vote?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I voted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have one for the positive, which
is Commissioner Fiala, four to the negative which is the remainder of
the commission.
What's the pleasure of the commission now?
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Bellows, if you could help
me out with this motion. Motion to approve for 225 -- 224 units, no
access to 951 for Phase 1 and 2.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Work with transportation staff
to develop a loop road.
MR. BELLOWS: An interconnection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Interconnection, a -- well, let's
call it a collector road.
Page 148
March 26, 2002
MR. BELLOWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I would like to see the
wall between Holiday Manor and this project built first on the project
before the lake excavated.
MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner's agreed to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And no storage of dirt on the
site.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You might want to be more specific.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think we need the -- we have
language in the PUD document. I suggest if they're willing to
eliminate the language and let the Land Development Code language
apply to fill and storage of-- from their excavation and if they need
to haul fill on site, the Land Development Code already-- they don't
need to put that language in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Mr. Bellows, I don't
know if it's -- they're willing to do what the board is willing to do,
and I think the Land Development Code is -- is sufficient under that.
That is -- and I hope somebody on the board would help me further
this motion along.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows, you've got a number of
items, don't you?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Another is we're going to attach the
architectural photographs as an exhibit to the PUD document
depicting the architectural style the petitioner is willing to commit to.
We're also allowing an overall number of units to reach 360 on-- but
only in the second phase, but the first phase 224. You also will attach
to this motion the approval of the affordable housing density bonus
agreement, or you can do that in separate motion afterwards, but that
should also reflect the 360 units maximum with 224 in the first phase.
You also have a limit on stories of the building to two stories,
and the landscaping is the last issue we need to address. There was a
Page 149
March 26, 2002
question of increasing it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We did.
MR. BELLOWS: And listed a fee, but that's not a very accurate
way for staff to gauge the type of landscaping to be placed, and I
have a suggestion that typical Type B buffer would be 80 percent
paid within one year and 6 feet in height. We can make that into 90
or 100 paid within one year.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What part, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: A type B buffer would be typically 80
percent.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking about on
U.S. 417
MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's -- we're working with the board
maybe --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's landscaping in general I thought
we were talking about.
MR. BELLOWS: I think we need to define -- if you're more
concerned with the property that's south and providing them with
additional landscaping or the entire boundaries of this project, we
have to remember that part of this will be part of a larger project
when it comes in and abutting commercial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where you want the
landscaping is just like it is in 2.4 around the -- you know, collector
road, the parking.
MR. BELLOWS: Type B buffer is required along U.S. 41. We
can increase that to a -- from a 20-foot-wide buffer to 25-foot-wide
buffer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me finish that motion.
Along the wall on Holiday Manor a 30-foot-on-center canopy trees --
native canopy trees.
MR. BELLOWS: We can do that.
Page 150
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm done with my
motion.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Henning, I'm assuming
we had talked about the need to come back to the board for the other
136 units. I want to make sure that was clear on the record that
although Mr. Bellows talked about 360 overall units, only 224 is
what's being approved today. The agreement will reflect the 136 for
sale, but we're not getting that today. We still have to come back to
the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I said in the beginning of
the motion was 224.
MR. YOVANOVICH: All together? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On -- on this first phase, and
you're going to come back just like I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Okay.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner Henning, just as a point of
clarification, Commissioner Coyle had had an exchange with Mr.
Yovanovich about a number of conditions that he was interested in
running with the land. Was it your intent to include those within your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe I did.
MR. MANALICH: Okay. Just--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm not sure. I just need a
clarification. I need to understand how we develop better control
here. Do we develop or have better control if we approve the entire
Phase 1 and Phase 2 specifying that Phase 2 will be single family, or
do we have better control if we approve only Phase 1 and then
require that Phase 2 come back? You see, my concem is -- and I
think the concern of some of the residents is that this thing doesn't get
changed sometime in the future. And based upon what we've talked
about today, it would be a Phase 1 followed with Phase 2 of single-
Page 151
March 26, 2002
family units. And my question is, do we have better control if we
approve all of that today or if we approve it in segments?
MR. BELLOWS: It's staffs recommendation based with--
based on my conversation with housing is that we approve the entire
360 now, but limit it to a
Phase 1 construction, and then they have to come in for an
amendment to do Phase 2.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, to deal with the landscaping
-- when we're talking about landscaping, we're talking about the 244
units primarily, and we will deal with landscaping for the remaining
136 later. Is that what you had in mind? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay. Then I understand
it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I just wanted a clarification on that
berm.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, sir, I'm going to have to ask
you to sit down. I closed the public participation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can ask a question. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to get a clarification on
that berm.
MR. BELLOWS: I would too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold it. We can only have one
person speaking at a time.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why I'm going to ask Mr.
Minor, who is the engineer who can tell you what the berm will be.
MR. MINOR: Grady Minor for the record. We -- we had
proposed to the Holiday Manor people that we would have a 3-foot-
Page 152
March 26, 2002
high berm, and on top of that or in front of it or behind it we would
also have a 6-foot-high fence, and we even described what the fence
would be. It would be made out of concrete precast -- a precast
structure. We haven't heard from them whether they wanted the 6-
foot fence on top of 3-foot berm which would essentially be a 9-foot
high structure or halfway down the berm with trees in front. So that's
still in flux.
If you want to tell us how to do it, you can because we're
agreeable to do it any of the many ways I just mentioned.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We -- we might want to have you
work that out with -- with your neighbors on the other side.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of my motion is to work
with the neighbors on the other side on the berm and the 6-foot wall.
MR. MINOR: We will have both of those.
MR. BELLOWS: The other issue with landscaping is the entry
feature. There was a comment made earlier that the entry feature
landscaping and the landscaping around the buildings themselves
could be improved, and maybe the applicant can work with our
landscape architect to come up with some language for the PUD
document. It's kind of difficult to determine what -- how much
additional landscaping would be required to improve it, but I think
we can come up with some language, and I guess we -- it wouldn't be
approved at the time of the public hearing, but it would have to be an
agreement that they would have to be approved.
Susan Murray, the current planning manager, indicated one and
a half times the requirement would be acceptable to her, and I suggest
that as a good compromise.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will incorporate that in my
motion. Is there a second?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We had-- you have a second. Who
was it?
Page 153
March 26, 2002
MR. BELLOWS: No, there has not been.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, there hasn't been. That's right.
We haven't closed the public hearing. We have first a motion, and
we're looking for a second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a second from
Commissioner Carter. At this point in time, we'll finish up the
discussion and go around once more, and then we're going to take a
vote. We'll start with you, Commissioner Fiala, unless you want to
go last.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we're -- I think we're turning
our back entirely on concurrency for this road, and I'm really sorry to
see that happen. I thought we were headed in the right direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No further comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing from me.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before you vote the only
thing I would ask Mr. Henning in order to make the record complete,
we do have to have a record of competent substantial evidence that
we're relying upon for your motion. That can be generally if you
would just reference what it is in the record that is the basis for your
motion, whether it be the staff report, the testimony you've heard
from petitioner, just generally if you could describe what it is that
you're relying on for the basis for your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm relying on staff's
input that this is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and
the Land Development Code, and that is the basis of my motion.
Page 154
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would you add to that,
Commissioner, also the commitments made by the petitioner on
public record?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I'll incorporate that in
mine and--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll include it in my second.
Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, all those in favor of the
motion indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Totally opposed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have 4-1, and the one
dissenting vote is Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, we also have the affordable
housing density bonus agreement. I believe you need to vote on that
separately.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you need to work that out
with the housing director.
MR. MANALICH: To be amended, as I understand, to reflect
the number of units correctly as discussed here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, I don't know, is there
anything else we need to do, Cormac, on the agreement?
MR. GIBLIN: Essentially the amendment will be amended to
reflect that the 224 rental affordable housing units and then as a
Phase 2 with another approval necessary for the 138.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just for the record you are?
Page 155
March 26, 2002
MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin, affordable housing department.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion
based on that input.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion.
We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed.
Item #13A
REPORT ACCEPTED ON THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU
ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC OPINION POLL- ORDINANCE TO
BE REVIEWED BY CLERK'S OFFICE AND COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND COME BACK TO THE BCC
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Four in favor; one opposing
vote who is Commissioner Fiala. And with that we're going to -- I
know -- I know about -- we're going to go right to Dwight, but we're
going to take five minutes. We're not going to leave here. We're
going to give the lady a chance to get her paper squared away and all
that.
(Short recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: You are on, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to move forward on just
Page 156
March 26, 2002
a slightly different item because we have the good fortune to have
Dwight Brock here, our clerk of courts. And Item 13-A is going to
be the next item that we handle. Dwight, welcome.
MR. BROCK: Thank you, Commissioners, Chairman.
I appreciate you-all taking the opportunity to allow me to speak to
you here today. Back in February of last year, right, you were having
so much time.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 2001, sir.
MR. BROCK: February of 2001, Commissioner Carter came to
me and asked me if I would do a favor for him and the people of this
community by seeing if I could do anything to find out if there was
common ground that existed in the Pelican Bay community with
regard to -- it was at the time an issue involving a special district that
had just been passed that eliminated a municipal service taxing and
benefit unit that existed out there that ultimately was reactivated.
And in the course of my involvement in that what I did was I sat
down with the people in the community and realized very short into
the process that it was more personality than it was substance. And
when the people got to talking together you could understand that
there was a lot of commonalty that existed there.
What I am bringing to you today -- I'm not bringing anything,
asking you to do anything. I'm simply reporting to you what I have
found and what I have discovered in the process. In the process I met
with all of the people in community bay -- in Pelican Bay through
community meetings. There was probably -- I think there were six or
seven community meetings that took place in Pelican Bay where
people were invited through various and sundry means, either
through the newspaper or through e-mail or through the internet sites
and through, I think, the Pelican Bay Foundation and its advertising
capabilities. And the people indicated to me that what they would
like to have is a government in the form of an MSTBU as opposed to
Page 157
March 26, 2002
a special district and that they would like to have as much input --
understanding that this board is the ex-officio board of an MSTBU,
as much input as they could into your decision-making process as to
who you appointed to be on the advisory committee out there.
The only way that I could perceive of that being accomplished
was to simply do a straw ballot and report the findings of that straw
ballot to you and let you take that into consideration as this board --
as the ex-officio board of the MSTBU made its decision as to who
would be on the advisory committee.
They further indicated that they would like the executive
director, whether that executive director be a contract employee or a
employee of the MSTBU, to report directly to the gentleman standing
-- sitting over here to my right, your county administrator. I went to
Tom and talked to Tom about that, and reluctantly or otherwise he
agreed that he didn't have a problem with that. Actually, it wasn't
reluctantly at all. He agreed that if that was what the people in
Pelican Bay wanted, he had no problem with that at all.
So they also wanted to avoid any appearance that one faction or
group of people in Pelican Bay was making the decisions for the
entire community, that this process be evaluated during the period in
time in which all of the people in the Pelican Bay area, that being the
season. And as a consequence we have waited through the process of
the season, and I drafted an ordinance that has been presented to Tom
and to the county attorney's office in its form for their initial review.
It was submitted to the people in Pelican Bay through as much
advertisement as I could, through the Pelican Bay Post, I think is
what it's called, through my web site and through whatever means I
could.
There were people who called me up and asked me if I could fax
it to them, if I could mail it to them, and we did everything we could
to try to make sure that they got it. We sent out inquiries as to
Page 158
March 26, 2002
whether or not they approved or disapproved of the ordinance as it
was drafted. And the results of that inquiry has come back. There
were 1,138 people who approved the ordinance as it was presented to
them. There were 165 who were opposed to it. There were 88 who
sent me back the cards with no approval or disapproval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many over votes do you
have?
MR. BROCK: How many over votes?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No hanging chads.
MR. BROCK: No hanging chads. Yeah. One of the things I
would like to take the opportunity to do -- and I'm doing this because
I think this was important to the people of Pelican Bay. When this
whole process began, the people in Pelican Bay were, obviously, on
either one end of the spectrum or the other. There was a lot of
neighbor being mad at neighbor. There was a lot of animosity in the
community, and as a consequence of this process one of the things
that I have observed in the latter meetings is that animosity has gone
away.
As a matter of fact, the two groups that were at each end of the
spectrum seemed to have both supported the ordinance that was
drafted and submitted, and this was all created on the initiative of
Commissioner Carter, I think, in the interest of the community in
which he represents and the interest of the community in which he
lives. And I'd like to thank Commissioner Carter for doing that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I thank you, Dwight, for
what you did. Because we told the group in Pelican Bay yesterday at
the foundation, Dwight and I have been friends a long time before I
was a commissioner. He's been a friend of mine as I am serving as a
commissioner, and I expect he will be a friend a long time after both
of us are long gone out of public life. So it was a personal friendship
that really helped get this job done, and it met the criteria, Dwight.
Page 159
March 26, 2002
We said we'll get the community together, community leaders
have to agree, the various groups have to agree. We wanted
constitutional officers involved to agree which was Dwight, county
manager, county attorney. It all had to come together so when it
came back to this board it wasn't something that was contentious.
And so based on what Dwight's reported, I would like to
recommend to the board that we go forward and have his office,
county attorney's office, and the county manager's office review the
ordinance, make sure we're all on the same page, and then bring it
back through the process for approval, which I believe takes two
meetings, if I'm right, Mr. Manalich.
MR. MANALICH: I'll certainly check that.
MR. OLLIFF: Usually requires a 30-day advertising period, and
then we can bring it to the board for review and adoption.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And so I would recommend to
the board today that we give staff direction to do that so that we could
accomplish what the residents want in the Pelican Bay community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This doesn't require a motion, does
it, Mr. Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF:
hurt.
No, sir. It doesn't but, frankly, a motion wouldn't
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then I'll make a motion to that
effect, that we accept Dwight Brock's report for recommended
changes in the ordinance which establishes a straw voting process for
the property owners out there, meaning if you own property you can
vote on this, but it's a straw vote. And then as that goes through that
system, it comes back to us with recommendations to the Board of
County Commissioners. And I think that we would -- you know, with
all due respect whatever they indicate that they want to do -- and they
have staggered this too. You'll get three and then you'll get three and
then you'll get three so that you don't take away the institutional
Page 160
March 26, 2002
memory on this.
MR. BROCK: That was something very important to the people
in Pelican Bay was that you did not take away the institutional
learning that this evolved over a period of time, so it was staggered.
I will provide for Ramiro and the county attorney's office a copy
of the ordinance that they can use to work off of. This is not my
product. This is the people of Pelican Bay's product. All I did was I
put in the form of legalese what they told me they wanted. So this is
not by any stretch of the imagination the Clerk of the Circuit Court's
product or Dwight Brock's product; this is a product of the people in
Pelican Bay. What you-all do with it is your business at this point in
time. I've done what I can.
There was some questions that were asked of me as we went
through the process, one of which was, who was going to pay the cost
of engaging in this straw vote -- straw vote. I went through the straw
vote basically. The identical same thing that will happen; as
candidates come up to fill the position of the advisory committee and
inquiring whether the people in Pelican Bay liked it or disliked the
ordinance. The software is already there. The property appraiser
provides me with the records. We load it in the system. Our
computer system prints out on a trifold document, the document
itself.
So the entire cost of the process is the cost of a postage stamp
for 6,000 people every two years -- once every two years or three
years, as the case may be, and the county attorney's office and my
staff's time to count those ballots as they come in for all to see.
That's the sum and substance and cost associated with the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
And, Dwight, you were the facilitator, the mediator of this issue out
there in Pelican Bay, and I just want to thank you for going above
and beyond your duties as a clerk of court to make things happen for
Page 161
March 26, 2002
these people out there.
MR. BROCK: I appreciate that. I'll pass that along to the
gentleman at the other end of the counter. He's the one that started it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, he gets paid high dollars
for that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Big bucks; right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that we have a motion and we
have a second. Is there any other discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
MR. BROCK: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Dwight.
Item #7B
RES. 2002-161 RE CU-2001-AR- 1420, WILLIAM HOOVER,
HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT INC.
REPRESENTING PASTOR COLIN RAMPTON OF THE
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USES "7" AND "11" OF THE "A-MHO" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT/MOBILE HOME ZONING
OVERLAY, FOR A CHURCH AND CHILD CARE CENTER ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
LILAC LANE AND IMMOKALEE ROAD- ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And now we return to our regularly
scheduled program, 7-B, if I'm not mistaken. Am I correct?
Page 162
March 26, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Would all the
people who want to participate in this please rise. (The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll go down the line here and
see what disclosures that we have from the commissioners starting
with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Cormnissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On this I talked to Mike Davis about
a couple times. Other than that, that's it.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: None for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Petitioner is
requesting "7" and "11" of the agricultural district to allow for a
church and child-care facility. As you can see on the visualizer, it's
located on the north side of Immokalee Road and west side of Lilac.
I have an aerial photo that shows the area as being vacant
agricultural. Here's Lilac Road, and on the west side of the subject
site is a mobile home site.
The petitioner's requesting a church be developed in three
phases. A master plan developed for the site.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take the opportunity
to maybe jump in here. I know you have read the backup. The board
has seen this, and perhaps we could cut straight to either a petitioner's
presentation and/or the Board of County Commissioners' questions
on this because it's a fairly small and straightforward project. I know
Page 163
March 26, 2002
the board has seen the backup.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to comment that two times
previously I pulled it from the consent agenda, and both times it was
just withdrawn, and so it's here before us now. There was some
issues I have. Let's hear from the petitioner first, and then we'll go
forward, and I'll give you my concerns.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can you say no to God?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't say no. I just phrase it in
different words; that's about it.
MR. HOOVER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Bill Hoover
of Hoover Planning representing the petitioner. Project site's 13.93
acres, there's no environmental concerns. There used to be, I believe,
a tomato field out there. The traffic -- the -- what we've done on this,
the project's going to be in several phases, and the first phase which
probably would happen 2003 it would generate during a typical
weekday 13 trips in the a.m. Peak hour, 12 in the p.m. Peak hour and
164. And that's when the building gets built up.
So the traffic-generation numbers were run on the size of the
building, but actually the building will probably initially only be
filled at 25 percent. So when the church originally opens there we're
probably going to generate the peak hour numbers ofjust only a
couple houses on there, which they could go out and put three houses
on there or three mobile homes right now.
Based on the request of the transportation-planning department,
we're asking for a child-care center of 100 children. The church has
agreed to not expand the initial church or add the childcare -- and we
classified those as Phases 2 and 3 -- until Immokalee Road out front
four-laning started or was completed. And so what that does the --
we have very little traffic impact in the first phase, and then when the
road gets widened -- even though we're expanding the church, the
road would still be at level of service B. So it's at level of service B
Page 164
March 26, 2002
today.
Commissioner Coletta's point, I think a little bit from what I
understand is, the road's -- the way we classify that road it's -- it's sort
of when it goes out of level of service C it sort of, like, falls off the
table and it falls out, but that's probably about three years down the
road we're approximating.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the road itself, you say, isn't
going to be considered in an F mode until three years from now?
MR. HOOVER: Correct. It's at level of service B at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. But then it's gonna -- at that
point in time, it will go downhill. I know that there's provisions in
here -- I don't know if they were in before -- about a sheriff deputy on
Immokalee Road directing traffic before and after the church service;
is that correct?
MR. HOOVER: Yes. That's -- that's been agreed to, and I think
that's a condition already in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. The point that I'm trying to
make here, too, is that this is a service that's much needed in the rural
area. The population is fairly spread out. The lack of services of this
kind -- the church is always needed no matter when or where, but the
day care and the recreational facilities, they're something that could
be used out there, but the problem is that Immokalee Road is a road
that isn't even on the building plans technically. Supposedly seven
years out, but it'has no meaning until it gets to the five-year mark.
I just -- I just want to make ourselves very much aware of the
fact that we might be opening up a bottleneck for more of these
things in the very near future, and at what point do we say no? How
can we limit what's going to happen out there until the road's in
place? I know in this case we're bringing it in phases, but just by the
fact that we grant this when we haven't done this before, am I correct,
it's been done so far in the past? It's lost on us.
Page 165
March 26, 2002
MR. HOOVER: I think -- I think we haven't done that very
often in the past where we've got projects. I know we did that on
Bucks Run a few months ago where we said a certain phase the road
improvements got to happen before that happens. And so as we early
on met with Dawn Wolfe, we agreed with that probably four or five
months ago. So what we're -- our impact on the first phase is so
small -- in fact, it doesn't have a radius of development impact. So at
that point you cancel the traffic study because when your impact is
less than 1 percent out there on any roadway, any arterial roadway
that's within five miles, then you can cut the traffic study at that
point. So in Phase 1 we don't even have a radius of development
impact.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows, if we were to approve
this as is right now, would we have to open the door for other uses, or
would it be just limited to a similar use, a church?
MR. BELLOWS: For other adjacent properties?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. BELLOWS: The code allows for similar but not the same
on adjacent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What happened years ago in Golden
Gate Estates -- it was a run on the land out there for churches and
fraternal organizations for a short period of time until we got the
master plan together which limited what could go out there and the
uses. My concern is that all of a sudden when we open this door--
and I don't know how we can protect ourselves from it now that this
land is out there and the churches are permitted. The next thing you
know we might have church row where every church from Naples
and Immokalee will be moving to this area because of the cost of
land.
MR. BELLOWS: There's a point that should be made. This
property is a little bit unique in that it's in the rural fringe area. The
Page 166
March 26, 2002
rural fringe would prohibit a lot of other type of developments
subject to that rural fringe agreement that was just recently passed,
but otherwise only reason this was approved was churches were
exempt from that governor's order as noted in the executive
summary. But you are correct, we would be subject to the rural
fringe study.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Filson, is there anyone to speak
on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Coletta, if I may, there's one
correction or clarification I'd like to make. The transportation
services director, Dawn Wolfe, has asked that we make a clarification
on the conditions of Approval No. 4. It would read that after the end
of the first sentence (as read): "Turn lanes within 90 days upon
written request by Collier County." If we can add that to No. 4. And
then on Condition of Approval No. 6 would read (as read): "The
applicant shall provide a 15-foot-wide landscape buffer which shall
be located along the southern property line subsequent to the right-of-
way dedication."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I incorporate that into my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the -- what's the reason
for the landscape buffer to the south?
MR. BELLOWS: That would be along the roadway, and there's
a landscape buffer requirement, and we just want to make sure that
that's subsequent to the right-of-way dedication, not prior to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that in a parking area, or is it
just --
MR. BELLOWS: I think that's the buffer between the parking
and the right-of-way. Another clarification, the 90 days is on the
Page 167
March 26, 2002
right-of-way, not the mm lane.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I incorporate that in my
motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second and also incorporate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll do it this time -- close the
public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to grab a hold of that
landscape buffer, and it is between the parking lot and the roadway;
correct? Because we definitely don't want to hide the church.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. IfI can maybe zip in here a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: There's a landscape buffer requirement right
in here. When we dedicate the right-of-way, we don't want it to be --
the landscape to be placed prior to dedication where it may be ripped
UP'
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
second. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Gotcha.
We have a motion, and we have a
All those in favor indicate by saying
Motion approved 5-0. Thank you.
Item #7C
RES. 2002-162 RE CU-2001-AR- 1414, KATHY MORGAN OF
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, REPRESENTING THE
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS,
Page 168
March 26, 2002
REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF THE RSF-3 ZONING
DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH FOR PROPERTY IN SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST- ADOPTED
And the next item would be 7-C, the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints in Immokalee. Would all stand that want to
participate in this to be sworn in?
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let's go down the line.
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have none.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Fred Reischl, planning services.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm going to do the same thing here, Mr.
Chairman, just ask the board to take some liberties here -- and I know
you've seen the backup on this one, and perhaps you want to either
have the petitioner make a presentation if you want to go that far or
even just ask the questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have a speaker on this?
MS. FILSON: I do, sir. I have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we hear the speaker. Then
we'll ask the questions.
MS. FILSON: Daniel Dixson.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. If you don't feel a need
Page 169
March 26, 2002
to speak, that's fine. Okay. I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion. Wait, did I close
the public hearing? I close the public hearing. I make a motion for
approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask a question? Would
they be subject to the conditions contained in our executive
summary?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
They would. Okay. Any other
All those in favor indicate by saying
Okay. Now moving right along to -
Item #9E - Added
DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING PASSIVE PARKS
MR. OLLIFF: I believe you're on 9-E, Mr. Chairman, which
was the additional item added regarding passive parks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I put that on the agenda,
and I think you received correspondence about Lely drainage basin
and the response that we got from staff of creating a passive park in
that area. And if we are we need to kind of give that direction
shortly.
What I was looking at was -- I think everybody's been up to Lely
Page 170
March 26, 2002
Barefoot Beach -- that kind of stabilization for the parking of shell
rock and a stabilization over it is what I was looking at so it will be
more conducive to the area and we -- we continue to have sheet flow.
So I would hope that we can direct staff to create a passive park in
this area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: John Boldt, storm water management director.
Great idea, but I just caution you -- and I'm no authority on this, but
the American Disabilities Act's requirements, if there's any monies --
public monies at all to be used to make improvements to this area for
passive purposes, apparently it's going to have to meet the ADA
requirements. And if we start doing that putting hard surfaces in
there, shelters, that's going to take away from the mitigation value of
the property, and we'll have to go find some additional land
somewhere.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't we have pathways now in
parks that are not hard surfaces?
MR. OLLIFF: We do, and what I'd recommend to you is that
you give us direction to go back and at least look at the passive park
option and bring you back a report. There's at least in the back of my
mind a parking issue and an ADA issue, but I'm not sure that either
one of those is not open -- something that we can't overcome. And I
know that in most cases the environmental agencies that I have dealt
with when I was in public services actually encouraged some public
passive use of the properties that we have obtained.
So if you'll just provide some direction in that regard we'll make
sure that we bring it back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would too. Commissioner
Henning, thank you very much for bringing this to us.
Page 171
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. And I just want to
-- if the public's going to buy property, I would like them to use it in
some way, so I appreciate the opportunity.
Item #1 OB
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO HOLD
MEETING ON APRIL 30, 2002, FROM 9 A.M. TO 12 NOON
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we move on to the county
manager's report, Item B, CRA.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, on this one the board will be
sitting not as the county commission but as the voting body of the
CRA.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What is this request -- what does
this require; a motion for approval so that we can move through the
process, is that how I understand that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but I would like to hear
Marlene's report.
MS. FORD: I will give a very brief report. I promise. Marlene
Ford with the planning services department. And thank you, Ramiro,
for pointing out this is a separate board. This is the CRA portion of
the meeting and I also wanted to remind you-- as I told you in a
memo a few months ago with the resignation of Commissioner
Mac'Kie and she was the chairman of the CRA -- our vice-chairman
became the interim chairman, so Commissioner Fiala is the chairman
for CRA for this item.
The purpose of this item is to try to make a distinction between
the Board of County Commissioners and the Community
Redevelopment Agency as well as to prepare for a whole slew of
items that the advisory boards have been working on. Bayshore
Page 172
March 26, 2002
Gateway Advisory Board and the Irmnokalee Advisory Board have
been working very hard for the last 10 to 12 months to prepare a lot
of recommendations for the CRA to consider, and we felt that it
would be better to have a separate meeting of the CRA. We have at
least 11 items between the two boards at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to add just -- just to tack on
-- she's been waiting here all day long so I need to say this. I want to
say what a great job you've been doing with the CRA that I've been
sitting in on. I'm sure you're doing a great job for Immokalee as well.
The time that you devote and the expertise that you offer, well, we all
appreciate that, and I just want to say that on the record. MS. FORD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question? Can we
schedule this on the same day as the MPO meeting?
MS. FORD: Yes, I believe we can. We even looked at that as
an option. We at some point in the future may try to establish a
regular meeting schedule of the CRA, and we have talked about that
as a possibility.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the date you're recommending
here is merely a one-time-only meeting, and then you'll establish
regularly recurring meetings after that; is that correct?
MS. FORD: What we would probably do is at that April 30th
meeting is have an item on your agenda to discuss how you want to
handle future meetings.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be good because I, like
Commissioner Coyle, have concerns about tying up a whole day for a
two-hour meeting. I have no problems with meetings that run
consecutively either. We went to MPO, and then later in the day we
had that. Beautiful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually, that's the suggestion I
Page 173
March 26, 2002
brought up awhile back. I appreciate you entering that into the
record. I felt we'd all be gathered here anyway. If we could just
gather an hour and a half early, we could -- we could then do this. I
guess we need a longer meeting initially to handle all of the things
that have been sitting there waiting for us, but after that we should be
able to move through them rather quickly.
MS. FORD: I understand you do have a monthly MPO meeting,
but I don't anticipate needing to have a monthly CRA meeting as
well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much, Marlene.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So this is going to require a motion
for approval.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. While you were out of the room, it was
just made noted for the record that Commissioner Fiala is the chair
for this particular item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So may I hear a motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Doesn't it feel good? First and
second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
(Unanimous response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
We'll see you on the 30th.
All in favor.
Opposed, like sign.
Thank you very much, Marlene.
And I will close the CRA meeting. Thank
yOU.
Item #10C
Page 174
March 26, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-163 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-LANE SECTION OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD BETWEEN WILSON BOULEVARD AND
CR 95 I/COLLIER BOULEVARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did that so nice, Donna. Onto
item -- where are we here? We're. still on the county manager Item C,
adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of right-of-way. Okay.
Here we go. This you have to read into the record; right?
MS. WOLFE: This we have to read in the record. Dawn Wolfe,
transportation planning department director. We have before you a
request to adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of right-of-
way and/or easements required for the construction of a four-lane
section of Immokalee Road between Wilson Boulevard and County
Road -- Collier Boulevard. This is Capital Improvement Element No.
71, Project No. 6001-A. Its estimated fiscal impact is $5,732,106.
(Chairman Coletta and Commissioner Carter leave the
boardroom.)
MS. WOLFE: We are here today because we need to identify a
public purpose and necessity for the purposes of right-of-way
condemnation. You have been provided previously a memorandum
dated February 19th, 2002, which specifically outlined the public
purpose and need and the review process that had been gone through
in establishing that purpose and need for the Immokalee Road
improvement from Collier Boulevard to 43rd Avenue. This project
will be coming forward in two phases. This right-of-way request is
for the second of the two phases. We are indicating Wilson to 43rd
will be our first phase of construction. That will allow us to get
traffic diverted over to Wilson Boulevard as we commence the
Page 175
March 26, 2002
remainder of the construction from Wilson Boulevard over to County
Road 951.
We have taken into consideration the environmental impacts; cost
of engineering alternatives; public health, safety, and welfare; long-
range transportation implication. There have been numerous public
meetings, MPO meetings, and various road alternatives, and typical
right-of-way. This is all documented in that memorandum of
February 19th, 2002.
We are asking at this time for the board to adopt the attached
resolution, for the chairman to execute the same on behalf of the
board, and authorization of any budget amendments that may be
necessary to implement the collective will of the board as evidenced
by adoption of the attached resolution and approval of this executive
summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since the chairman is out of the
room, should we -- do we dare deny it, Immokalee Road?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's deny it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll entertain a motion to accept
staff's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
I make that motion.
I second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
All in favor of the motion
Any opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion carries 3-0. Let the
record reflect that Commissioner Carter and Commissioner Coletta
are absent.
Item # 1 OD
Page 176
March 26, 2002
RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS TO BE BROUGHT
BACK FOR CLARIFICATION DURING THE NEXT LDC CYCLE
Move onto Item 10-D. That is the adoption of residential parking
for the board's consideration.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
enforcement director. This item is being brought to you-all just for
further discussion. We want to first start by saying -- apologize for
all of the confusion. The intent of sending out those flyers was not to
confuse everybody, but it was intended to help -- tried to explain
what the newly adopted parking standards would be within the
county's urban area.
I just wanted to give you a little bit of background as to what
occurred. There are 47,000 flyers that were mailed or copied, but
only 16,000 went out. Once we found out there were errors in that
document we stopped the distribution of them. And in your
executive summary I've attempted to clarify what the intent of the
regulations were.
For single-family areas there is a requirement that no more than
40 percent of the front yard of a single-family zoned area be
designated for a parking area. The flyer that went out is copied on
your executive summary and is identified as Exhibit B.
There was some confusion with respect to requiring a maximum or a
minimum of 20 feet of the front yard to be designated for parking
space. And there is really no intended minimum for single-family
areas. There is only a maximum that should be applicable as
according to the adopted standard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Arnold, what are you
looking for today?
MS. ARNOLD: With respect to direction, there was some
Page 177
March 26, 2002
confusion. I didn't know whether or not the board wanted us to look
at amending the actual adopted language in the code. There is a cycle
that's currently underway that we possibly could enter in
modifications to the Land Development Code, and I've been out in
the community talking to different neighborhoods, and there is --
there have been some comments that were made within the
residential areas that I did talk to with respect to -- as outlined in the
executive summary.
Whether we truly intended to have nobody grandfathered in, my
interpretation of that language was yes. And there was also a
question as to whether or not people with more than 40 percent or 50
percent or more than the required maximums, would we then go in
and require them to remove the excess parking areas.
So those are two questions that I wanted to bring before you. And I
do believe there are a couple speakers here.
One of the other comments that was made was, why was this
only applicable to the front yard?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Michelle, was your
understanding of amending the LDC for this if you have -- oh, okay.
I see where you're going there. Some cases out there where
somebody has paved their whole front yard. MS. ARNOLD: Whole front yard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't think we're
addressing that issue of the Land Development Code. (Chairman Coletta returns.)
MS. ARNOLD: Well, there is language in the code that speaks
to nonconforming situations, meaning situations that are now made
nonconforming based on the adopted regulation. They don't apply --
they don't comply with the regulations adopted. So there are
properties out there that the entire front yard is paved over. Some of
them look pretty attractive. I mean, they have paver blocks as
Page 178
March 26, 2002
opposed to a concrete yard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe we could get them to paint
them green.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know of two in Naples Manor that
are completely cemented over one right next door to the other. The
houses are very neat. It doesn't look like they rent them out or
anything; it's just that they don't have to mow it because it's all
cement. They would have to pull that up; right?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, the way I read it, yes, they would.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh.
MS. ARNOLD: And one other thing -- point of clarification
that I wanted to make was that the adopted regulation really only
applies to conventional zoned areas, meaning your RSF-1, RSF-2,
RMF-1 -- RMF-6, and those type of things wouldn't apply to planned
unit developments that have their own adopted standard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, Michelle, is the
possibility that today the action that we take is grand fathered in these
people that choose to cement a majority of their front yard?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think we would have to amend the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any way to enforce the
code, give the -- for the board to give direction to enforce the code
during this process of people having to park on improved surfaces?
Is that part of it -- your emphasis of enforcement?
MS. ARNOLD: If you're asking whether or not there is a way
to just look at properties or make a priority, so to speak, to properties
that are not parking on improved surfaces, I can surely direct my staff
to do that. Then we can proceed with the other properties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can also stipulate that even
though the entire front yard is covered with an impervious surface,
you can require that only a certain percentage of it be used for
Page 179
March 26, 2002
parking. So if-- can you not? Does that create a problem for you?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I think it would.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
MS. ARNOLD: There's really no way for me to know what
they're going to be parking on. Yeah. The enforcement of it would
be difficult, but we can surely do what Commissioner Henning is
suggesting, make a priority those properties that are -- clearly there's
not adequate surface provided in the -- in the front yard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we have some public
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do. We have two speakers, and
why don't we go to them at this time.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Mr. Jack Mischung, and he
will be followed by Vera Fitz-Gerald.
MR. MISCHUNG: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, staff, for the
record, my name is Jack Mischung, a long-time resident of Naples
Manor. While there is a work in progress to form a Naples Manor
property owners association, it is still that, a work in progress, so I
appear here representing no one other than myself. Please be aware of
that.
I'm kind of at a disadvantage. I don't know why my support
group didn't show up. I had thousands of them coming. They haven't
come. But I'm at a further disadvantage. I really don't know what
we're doing here today. The ordinance that you passed, I guess, has
some wrinkles that need ironing, or perhaps it's just the language in
the flyer. I urge you to do whatever you need to do to straighten this
ordinance out. We desperately need it in areas like Naples Manor.
Take this scenario, a single-family home with two or three, four
families living in it, ten adults all working at different jobs. Ten,
twelve cars, no place to park them. Park them on the lawn. Park
them in the swale. Already starting to see cars parked in backyards.
Page 180
March 26, 2002
If you are required to rewrite this ordinance or tinker with it a little
bit, consider adding in no parking in the backyard, side yards except
for recreational vehicles. I believe as the LDC stands now a
recreational vehicle can only be behind the rear wall.
I live in a house that's right up to the -- to the setbacks. The
house next door to me is right up to the setbacks. I really don't want
him to park on the side -- not that he would, but I don't want him to
park on the side yard so that the beautiful view out of my side
window is now a car. Please -- please consider that perhaps for
future.
As I said, I don't know, I've got pages and pages of notes, but
they're no good because I really don't know what -- what your
intention is, why we're even here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jack, I can help you -- I'm Tom
Henning.
MR. MISCHUNG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is what we want to do -- my
opinion, I can't speak for the rest of them -- is go forward with a
portion of parking on improved surface, correct the flyers, and
hopefully that we can target those flyers or information about -- about
it in troubled areas and not certain --
MR. MISCHUNG: Well, in my discussion, Commissioner
Henning, with staff, I believe they're perfectly capable of using a
little discretion in the enforcement of this. Probably some of these
yards that have 100 percent concrete it was done without a permit
anyway. So I don't know, but we need the ordinance.
We need the ordinance desperately. It may help down the line to
address some of these overcrowding situations., and that's 90 percent
of our problem in these low-income, affordable home neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't live in one of those,
Jack.
Page 181
March 26, 2002
MR. MISCHUNG: I know it doesn't -- it doesn't exist. Naples
Manor -- in fact, someone said that these developments were plopped
down on them. No, they were plopped down on me. Eagle Creek,
Whistler's Cove, Lely, both Lelys, they were plopped down on me. I
was there a long time before any of them were. That's immaterial.
Stick to your guns on this ordinance, please.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Jack.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Has Jack seen the new words on
the -- that's what we're really looking at today -- is it understandable
as it's rewritten-- right?
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Vera Fitz-Gerald.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Hi. I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald from Naples
Park. And I wasn't-- like Jack, I wasn't certain why I needed to be
here, but I decided, oh, my Lord, if they're going to rewrite this, I
better be here.
As you know, there was a secondary reason -- a secondary
benefit that we wanted this ordinance badly, and that is because it
may actually limit the number of people who can live in a house.
Like Jack, just down the street from me is a lovely home, and it was
rented to a couple, and then another couple moved in, and then
another couple moved in. And I do believe another couple moved in
because there's eight cars, and the whole front yard's cars. The swale
is cars, and one of them even parks right out on the road.
So we really want this ordinance. We want this ordinance
enforced. And, like Jack, we would like to see you further this by
adding that there is not to be any parking in the backyard or the side
yards, that it can be only limited to the front yard, the 40 percent. The
reason I'm saying that is we already have a problem -- and I never
really realized how much of a problem we had until I started going
around talking to people about this parking thing.
Page 182
March 26, 2002
And, of course, as soon as it hit the papers, people started to call
me. And people said, "Well, they're already running around parking
in the backyard." And I was thinking, Oh, Lord, love a duck. So if
you're going to tweak this thing, would you please add that tweaking
because we need it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say, Lord, love a duck?
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yeah. My husband's cussing an Anglican
priest, and he said, "Where did that come from?'.' And I said, "I have
no idea." I think it's an old prairie expression. Anyway, so I assume
that we're just here to clarify the wording, and I'm assuming that we
are going to go ahead with the enforcement, ladies and gentlemen,
Michelle. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And I wanted to -- to make another point
that-- that we -- I'm presenting the language to you-all for review and
comment to make sure that it's easier to understand, but it wasn't my
intent to put -- make another 47,000 copies and put it in the utility
bills. We were going to concentrate on areas where there were a
problem and distribute those flyers to specific individuals with a
problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a -- go ahead. Michelle, it's
trying to limit and saying people can't park in the backyard or the side
yard. Is that going to raise a problem in some places where actually
the driveway goes along the side of the house if we put that into the
ordinance?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it will.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then that would -- that would raise a
problem. Other than Naples Park where their situation is very
unique, some people actually have a driveway that goes along the
side of the house.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's not being considered today,
that --
Page 183
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
wondering.
added to it.
motion?
Oh, okay. Fine. I was just
We had it mentioned about that coming up and being
Where are we with this? Who's -- ready to make a
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm ready to ask a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give it a try.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I've got some concerns
about not only what I presume is going to be the new information
circular in the executive summary but also about the LDC. My
concerns are essentially this; that there is nothing that designates a
minimum-size driveway. And I'm wondering if we should not do
that.
Let me read the statement from the LDC -- and it's very
confusing to me, and I will just read part of it (as read): "Parking
shall be limited to stabilized pervious or impervious surface areas of
the lots specifically designed for the parking of automobiles which
may not be comprised -- may not comprise an area greater than 40
percent of any required front yard which nevertheless may not limit --
may not serve the limited driveway to a width of less than 25 feet."
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just say that the driveways -- the
maximum size would be 40 percent and its minimum size would be 7
1/2 feet and --
MS. ARNOLD: There is no minimum requirement at all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand, but by putting this
clause in here you're essentially confusing the -- right, Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator,
community development environmental services. The way the code
reads if you look at it, if you have a 50-foot frontage, 40 percent is 20
feet. If you're less than 50 feet, you are still allowed 20 foot.
So let's say you had 40-foot frontage. If it was 40 percent, you'd
have 16. But what the code said is we would not limit, so the upper
Page 184
March 26, 2002
limit for any driveway or any driveway for a yard less than 50 feet is
20 feet, not the 40 percent of 40, which would be 16. So that's the
way it was written, and it's not written very clearly. Took me four
times to read it. I admit that.
But what we need to do is say that this is the maximum. There
was no intent on a minimum. We could certainly put a minimum on
there, but I think we're -- we're starting to go down another path. But
it would -- certainly may help. Where the confusion was -- was
people read that 20 and assumed that they had to go out and build a
driveway with a 20-foot minimum, and that was not the intent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what the original flyer said.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. That's what the original flyer
said.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
itself to me is confusing.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
And the Land Development Code
And I would think that if you can
make it so I can understand it, anybody can understand it.
MR. SCHMITT: That's what Michelle and the attempt of this
upcoming LDC amendment process we're going to try and go back
and amend that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: What we're looking for is guidance from you,
from the board, is are you happy with what we got as far as the
limitations for frontage of a home that's less than 40 feet. We would
still allow a 20-foot maximum width rather than the 40 percent of that
less than--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One other -- other point I think
that should be made is. that I see nothing in the LDC or in the flyer
which indicates that you must have at least one parking space per unit
in multi-family -- multiple-family homes. The only place is in the
Page 185
March 26, 2002
little box on the side which -- which indicates, you know, these are
examples.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it would be better to have
that read "multiple family homes will provide at least one parking
space per unit, but no more than two and a half parking spaces per
dwelling unit" and that--
MR. SCHMITT: That was the intent when we did the -- when
we did the chart to show that, but -- but, in fact, I have not gone out --
the staff has not gone out to determine there may be old units out
there that really do not have one per -- per -- per for a multi-family
home or multi-family dwelling unit does not have one per, and that
may be a problem. We would be dictating they would now have to
enlarge their driveway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let -- let me -- let me take
that one step further.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, the issue here was trying to restrict the
number of parking. We weren't trying to demand that they have --
accommodate the parking. The code was written primarily to restrict
the amount of vehicles in front of-- in front of single-family and
multi-family homes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there something in the code
somewhere that says you've got to have at least one parking space per
dwelling unit?
MR. SCHMITT: I-- I-- I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't you think we ought to have
one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm getting some nods
back in transportation, there is.
MR. SCHMITT: We can -- we can address that. I think we
need to come back to you on that because it's a matter of-- are there
Page 186
March 26, 2002
other units -- are there units within the county that this would create a
problem, older -- older developments where it might have only
provided two and the other two had.to park on the street.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we grant variances under
those circumstances if someone petitions us for a variance? MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we -- is it appropriate to put
that in the Land Development Code or the flyer because there's some
circumstances where you raise a question. If the entire front yard is
currently paved and we're going to limit them to 40 percent, are they
going to have to tear it up? It would seem to me we could grant a
variance, but I believe you can Conduct inspections that will tell you
whether or not they're using more than 40 percent of it for parking.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Does that help any?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We'll put something in for a minimum as
well then in the written language.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be -- that would be very
helpful. Are we going to bring this back, do you think, or are you
ready to move on it now?
MR. SCHMITT: What we need to do is bring it back in the
LDC amendment process. We'll move as your guidance now, but we
will -- in the LDC amendment process, we'll have to amend the
language.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me see if I understand what
you just said. You would want to have a minimum but for small little
bungalow homes that just have a single-car garage and just one-car
family that would be the minimum? They would allow -- be allowed
to have just a one-car driveway?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. The purpose of this was to make
sure that just in -- in a broad sense that the LDC policy as we
Page 187
March 26, 2002
interpret it is what the board agrees with. We will bring back some
clarification in the next LDC cycle, because obviously it doesn't read
well, and we want to make sure that as we're writing it that we're
writing what standard the board wants. And what we're hearing from
the board is that the percentages are okay, the -- the 20 foot for a lot
that is smaller than 40 feet in width is okay, but you would like to see
perhaps a review, and if there's not a requirement for at least one
parking space per dwelling unit, some consideration for that -- for the
board to see when we bring the next LDC amendments along with
our clarifying language.
If that's what the board's looking for -- that's what I've summed
up anyway from the discussion that I think we've had so far this
afternoon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would clarify -- maybe we should
clarify the grandfather thing. I think there still seems to be confusion
there as well.
MR. SCHMITT: That's where the code specified you would
have to comply. If, in fact, your driveway exceeded the maximum,
you would have to go back and comply, and that was the purpose of
the code. If we're going to grandfather, we're now not adding any --
any meat to the code because it was just as discussed --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- was to go back and have some of these folks
who paved their front yard --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No grand fathering.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to make sure that that's clear.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're going to target areas
instead of sending it out countywide? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 188
March 26, 2002
Item #1 OF- Moved from Item # 16B 1
USE OF CONTRACTED MITIGATION BANKS FOR ROAD
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? Well, I guess
we're ready to move on then to the 16-B- 1, mitigation bank for road
construction.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I moved this to the regular
agenda for one real reason, and that was just based, honestly, on the
information this morning in the paper. I just thought some
clarification about that program would be helpful. And, frankly, it
was obvious that I think there must be some misunderstanding about
the county's mitigation program, so I thought between Steve Carnell,
your purchasing director, and Kevin Dugan who's been working on
not only that mitigation program but some other mitigation banks,
that we might be able to provide some -- some clarification for the
public and for the board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please proceed.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, purchasing
general services director. Just to clarify my part in this, I wanted to
straighten out the statement that was made in the paper this morning
and clarify that there was, in fact, a competitive bidding process to
engage these private mitigation banks. That process took place
almost a year ago. It was April of 2001, and the Board of County
Commissioners made an award on contracts to two mitigation banks
in June of 2001.
The contracting process that we took part in my department was
one prong of two very important prongs in attempting to manage this
mitigation process cost effectively. The first prong was to get the
Page 189
March 26, 2002
sources lined up and in place and to have standard pricing, if you
will, that was locked in for a period of time. And this is, in fact, an
annual contract that's good for one year with options to renew for
three additional years. So that means you have four years of
consistent pricing, if you will, on the credits. The value of the credits
are fixed.
The second piece of this is with that in place, with that schedule
set on the credits, this enables us on the transportation side to pursue
the accurate allocation of credits with the various regulatory agencies.
And in this case, with wetlands mitigation, we'd be primarily, I'm
assuming, talking with the water management district. But in that
instance we've been very successful with our transportation staff with
being able to substantially reduce the amount of credits required.
It's basically a negotiation process, and I know on the Livingston
Road project we were successful in lowering the amount of credits,
which were initially anticipated we required at 28 credits. We were
able to get that down to under 17 credits, which translates to -- at
$35,000 per credit to a savings of almost $400,000 from what we
originally projected to spend on that.
So I just mainly want -- my part in this was to get on the record
that we did have a formal competitive bid process, that it was an
annual contract so that we would have our sources in place for a fixed
period of time, and that the board did in fact approve those contracts.
And all that was conducted within the preview of our purchasing
policy. If you have any other questions regarding the actual process,
Kevin can assist you on that. Any questions for me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there's some public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have two speakers.
Page 190
March 26, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: And I would like for you to hear from Mr.
Dugan as well.
MR. DUGAN: For the record, my name is Kevin Dugan. I'm a
principal environmental specialist with transportation engineering.
One of the reasons we came before the board again was because there
was a bit of confusion about who had the authority to purchase the
mitigation credits. Apparently the finance director for the clerk, Jim
Mitchell, didn't think it was clear enough that on a departmental level
as we work through the permitting process that we had the authority
to -- to buy mitigation credits.
You have to understand that -- excuse me, that it's an ongoing
process, that when a permit is submitted to the regulatory agencies,
you know, quite frankly, we try to low ball the number of credits that
we're saying that we're impacting. And, of course, the regulatory
agencies come back and say, "No. No. You're doing more." So, you
know, it's a matter of give and take as we work through this, but at
the end of each negotiation period, we have to say, Okay, we're going
to supply this many credits from this particular area or this particular
bank or, you know, area of mitigation.
So it's changing -- until that permit is finally issued that, you
know, we go back. Well, we need two more here, three more here, or
we can give up on this. So instead of coming back every two weeks
or month or so to get a change to, you know, an ongoing process,
we're asking for, you know, you to grant the permission to the
transportation department to buy credits that are in the budget.
They're in the project budget. It's just what that final figure is finally
going to be. Any questions?
MR. OLLIFF: The only other point, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
make is there are two contracts that are in front of you today. It's
really clarification of the authority to use those contracts, but if you'll
recall the last time these contracts were in front of the board, the
Page 191
March 26, 2002
board was very interested in making sure, frankly, as a result of Ms.
Payton's comments that day, that the banks that we used were in
Collier County and I think the idea was that if we are going to do
environmental mitigation, that the residents of Collier County are
going to pay for in one form or another, whether it be through gas
taxes or even water and sewer fees, that the benefit of the mitigation,
whether it be in a mitigation bank or whether we buy mitigation
credits someplace, that should remain here in Collier County as well
so that the residents of Collier County who paid for it got the benefit
for it.
So the primary contract that you have in front of you is a Collier
County mitigation bank. The other one is not, and the only reason we
would ever use that is if we are required to do -- I believe it's upland
mitigation in that case.
MR. DUGAN: Saltwater.
MR. OLLIFF: Saltwater mitigation. We are not allowed to use
the mitigation in, say, Collier County, and that would be the only
reason we would ever use it, if we're directed to use some mitigation
bank that's not here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about the CREW? And I
noticed that the CREW wasn't mentioned in here, and I know a great
deal of it is in Collier County, but we're voting the Collier County
portion of it. I know they still have a lot of land they want to buy.
MR. DUGAN: We have used CREW in the past for different
projects, but recently they -- they're not as cost effective as private
mitigation banks.
MR. OLLIFF: If I remember, the last numbers were somewhere
around $44,000 per credit versus somewhere around $35,000 for
what we've recently bid.
MR. DUGAN: That was another--
MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
Page 192
March 26, 2002
MR. DUGAN: -- project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'm on that board, so
I'm going to have to check with them and find out why it's so
expensive.
MR. DUGAN: Land is expensive.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I think you have two registered
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm waiting for that point now. Go
ahead, please.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Your first speaker is Mr. Lewis Lautin,
and he will be followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. LAUTIN: Can I defer to Nancy Payton? Let the lady go
first, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're a real gentleman.
MS. PAYTON: Thank you very much. Nancy Payton
representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and I wanted to make a
few comments on mitigation banking and the county's use of
mitigation banks and some other options that are available. And
since last April, a year ago almost when the issues first came forward
about how best to use these monies and get the biggest bang for the
buck, there were a number of issues that came forward. And since
that time there have been ongoing discussions about how best to use
these mitigation monies, and that involves the county staff, various
state and federal agencies and environmental organizations, and it's
moving along, but it's a slow process. And some of those options that
are being explored are natural resource conservation services,
possibility of taking Collier County's mitigation monies to purchase
lands within Collier County. They are exploring that. That's moving
forward, and it's slower than some of us would like, but it is moving
and proceeding, and we're pleased that that is happening, and that's
hopefully going to be another possibility to purchase lands. And
Page 193
March 26, 2002
those lands would be public lands that the public would have access
to, and they would be in Collier County, and we have advocated
Northern Golden Gate Estates, North Belle Meade and South Belle
Meade as some of the target areas for those mitigation programs.
And also -- this is my idea -- is that county mitigation land
buying program could be a complement to our green-space effort
which will pass in November, and they could complement one
another. And we could parlay our money and double our money and
maybe triple our money to purchase land, which again would be
public lands for public use.
But there are immediate needs for building roads and other
infrastructures. I have been out to Panther Island mitigation bank. I
went recently, and I must tell you I was most impressed and did feel
comfortable that our monies were going there because I do believe
sincerely that it is having a significant impact on nature and for
nature.
There is one possibility that I would like to share with all of you,
particularly Commissioner Fiala, is that when Panther Island
mitigation bank is exhausted or full or whatever the proper term is,
fulfilled it's purpose, it must be turned over to some other entity, as I
understand it, and we have advocated that it be CREW that receive
Panther Island mitigation bank because the public would have access
to it and the public could enjoy it. They not only helped to restore
those lands, but there would be an opportunity for public use, which
is compatible with that restoration. So maybe we can lobby several
and get that resolved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's gorgeous there.
MS. PAYTON: In the interim-- and staff has honored this, that
since last April when this -- these issues first came up, staff did say
that they would use whenever possible mitigation banks and
mitigation opportunities within Collier County. And I do feel that
Page 194
March 26, 2002
they are -- I do believe that they are fulfilling that obligation and will
continue to do that while we explore these other possibilities and
hopefully implement them as complements to various programs.
So I'm here to say I'm happy with what staff's doing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. PAYTON: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker will be Mr. Louis Lautin.
MR. LAUTIN: Ladies and gentlemen, I will probably throw
away most of my notes because so many kind things have been said
by Ms. Payton, and I know some of you have been out at our bank
site. Mitigation banking does provide a tremendous advantage for
the environment in that the mitigation is done prior to the impacts.
Those of you who have been out at our mitigation bank site have seen
and you can touch and feel the birds, the grasses.
We spent over $4 million so far on the site at no cost to the
county or the public. We've planted over a million four plants and
trees, and we haven't had all the credits released for the work we've
done yet because two regulatory agencies have to go out and inspect
the work and approve it.
Now, questions have been raised as to why is Collier County
spending money on mitigation. It's because the Federal Clean Water
Act of 1972 mandates it and administrations and Congress mandates
it and because the State of Florida mandates compensatory mitigation
when you destroy wetlands. We firmly believe that Panther Island
mitigation bank provides a wonderful place for mitigation to take
place. We also would like to tell you that the State of Florida in
Senate Bill 99-86 states that the legislature finds environmental
mitigation for impact projects provided by the Department of
Transportation can be more effectively achieved by regional long-
term mitigation planning, including the use of mitigation banks, and
they allow for up to $75,000 per acre of impact which is now almost
Page 195
March 26, 2002
$90,000 per acre of impact.
The contract before you today, the first contract, is for 16.98
credits, but it's for 28 acres of impacted acres at a cost to Collier
County of $20,700 -- $20,800, around 70 percent less than what's
authorized by the State of Florida for similar type of mitigation. So
it's environmentally beneficial. The cost is very cost effective to
Collier County. And the third thing I'd like to add is that in
mitigation banking 100 percent of the risk of that mitigation is
transferred to the mitigation banker upon the permits being
transferred. On-site mitigation, mitigation in trust or other places,
which is very admirable, the permittee, in this case Collier County,
would be responsible for the success of that mitigation through the
end of the term of that permit, which could be five or ten years. In
the case of buying credits from a mitigation bank, three or four or
five months from now when those permits are transferred and that
mitigation is transferred, there is zero liability to Collier County on
the mitigation that's 100 percent transferred. And that's one of the
reasons that mitigation banking has been so well accepted. Cost
effective, the agencies like it, and environmentally it's excellent.
I don't want to complicate the issue, but I must set the record
straight in terms of the contract that was awarded to us in June. It
does allow, with the approval of staff, for some mitigation to go to
Big Cypress mitigation bank, which is in Hendry County, and I just
want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. This first
contract is for Panther Island mitigation bank located in Collier
County adjacent to the Audubon Corkscrew Sanctuary. We will
make every effort to have credits available from Panther Island
mitigation bank to fulfill this contract.
We understand staff. We understand the wishes of the Collier
County Commission. We will do everything we can to fulfill those
wishes, but there is a contract that does allow mitigation to either go
Page 196
March 26, 2002
to Lee County through Mariner property for saltwater impacts or
credits that are not. available to go to Big Cypress, and I just had to
make sure that everybody understood that for the record.
We think that mitigation banking provides a great solution for
Collier County. We appreciate the opportunity to address you. Any
of you who haven't been to the bank site we invite you out there. I
know Nancy was out there. We're neighbors of CREW. We're good
neighbors of CREW. We're good neighbors of Corkscrew Sanctuary.
We worked with Ed Carlson to design our mitigation bank and
actually tiered our marsh system for the benefit of the wood storks so
they'd have a longer breeding season working with Ed and the
Audubon Society.
So if you have any other questions, I'd like to be available to
answer them. If not, thank you very much for the opportunity to be
able to speak today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One question. Have we purchased
property of our own for mitigation and -- and how does that price
compare with mitigation bank purchases?
MR. DUGAN: Okay. For the record, I'm Kevin Dugan again.
Yes. Back in '93 or '94 through a P-2000 Grant the Transportation
Department purchased 80 acres of land out in Belle Meade. That
land was used for the mitigation of three road projects. There was
951 South that was completed from Davis Boulevard to Route 41.
There was the section of Immokalee Road that was just completed
from -- was it 1-75 out to 951. And there's the still yet to be started
951 North that goes from Golden Gate Boulevard to 951. Those
credits were used at the time, but land back then was $2,300 an acre.
The original intent was to buy 320 acres, but the problem was
the state was buying up land in Belle Meade -- we were using state
money, people we were dealing with thought they had two different
Page 197
March 26, 2002
buyers, so they were trying to up prices. You know, our contract
with the P-2000 folks was starting to run out. We just ended up with
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aren't we purchasing some land
for mitigation in the Lely --
MR. DUGAN: That land and -- yes. That land -- that's a storm
water project. They have special permitting problems with the Army
Corps of Engineers, and they are requiring them to buy land within
the drainage basin. Now that 99 acres, it's my understanding that it's
costing storm water just under $35,000 an acre to purchase.
Now, for it to become mitigation, they have to do some sort of
enhancement to that property; clear exotics, you know, restore
hydrology, but they have to do something to that property to make it
usable for mitigation.
Now, the cost of that -- now, when we did Belle Meade, I mean,
it was costing us close to $5,000 an acre to restore it. Again, that was
almost ten years ago. So looking at costs now, it's probably up to
7,500 per acre or more. Then there is the perpetual maintenance that
goes with that.
Currently the Transportation Department is paying our Natural
Resources Department to go out into the Belle Meade to -- you know,
once a year or a couple times a year to maintain the property. In
other words, make sure the malaleucas are coming back, Brazilian
peppers are coming back, and that the property is remaining, as it
should. So there are added costs to owning our own property for
mitigation.
MR. OLLIFF: The short answer to your question is, is probably
the comparative cost for the property on the storm water side of the
house is somewhere around forty-two to forty-three thousand dollars
per acre, and that's our cost if you want to compare it. And I will tell
you from most construction projects that I have been involved with,
Page 198
March 26, 2002
anyway here in the county, if you have a site large enough to be able
to do what they call on-site mitigation and that's where you can
preserve site right there as part of the project, it's usually about a one-
to-one requirement. But if you go off site, like you almost always
have to do for transportation, the mitigation cost can be as high as ten
acres to one depending on the quality of the lands that you're -- you're
building your project through. And the board needs to keep in mind
as well -- and so when you're talking about ten acres to one, you're
talking about ten acres -- $43,000 for every one acre that you're going
to need to take. The cost is exceptionally high.
The other thing the board needs to take into consideratioff is, you
know, there's always an option to avoid impacting the wetland, but I
can't tell you the cost to the -- to the public for having to build and
design roadways that didn't impact any wetlands in Southwest
Florida. Now, I will tell you that I think that's unreasonable, and you
-- you couldn't physically do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But let me make sure I understand
this. Number one, you did go out on competitive procurement?
MR. DUGAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You did compare the costs of the
people who responded to the two RFPs? MR. DUGAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You -- we have purchased
property of our own, and we have found that purchasing the property
on our own is at least 20 percent more expensive than what we have
to pay if we go to the mitigation bank. Is that essentially --
MR. DUGAN: That's essentially correct. You know, I can't
agree with the 20 percent because that could vary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I mean, I was just using the
35,000 we're paying for the mitigation bank versus the 42,750 that
we're paying for the Lely storm water drainage as roughly a 20
Page 199
March 26, 2002
percent difference. So -- so we are saving money. We're doing what
Nancy Payton wants us to do, and for good reason. We're purchasing
this property in Collier County, and I presume all of this information
was available had anybody bothered to ask or check on the problem;
is that correct?
MR. DUGAN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the -- the Clerk of
Courts asked us to ask you to put this on the agenda. I presume if
they felt there was anything wrong with what we were doing they
would have told us. Have we received any indication that they think
we've done anything wrong?
MR. DUGAN: I was dealing with --
MR. OLLIFF: Kevin--
MR. DUGAN: -- Jim Mitchell.
MR. OLLIFF: I think there was just a question in the language
that we had put in the original executive summary about which
departments had access to and the ability to be able to
administratively just use those contracts, and so the finance
department asked us to clarify that through this executive summary
here today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay. Now, the only
improvement to this process I would like to recommend is -- is that
we at least try to specify the amount of money related to these --
these purchases, separate it from the budget. I know it's in the
budget, but if we could separate it from the purchases whenever these
things come up, it would give us a better idea of just what was
happening and why it was happening. In other words, it's mitigation
for what? What segment of roads and -- and estimated cost of-- of
the mitigation would be helpful, I think.
MR. OLLIFF: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Page 200
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have none, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Coyle said it correctly. We have a sound process. We
are being good financial stewards, and we're going to improve it with
a little more information with the Board of County Commissioners,
but it was nothing wrong with the process. We were doing it right,
and I'll leave it stay at that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. We have a motion to
approve and a second. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
take a five-minute.
(Short recess was taken.)
All those in favor indicate by saying
The ayes have it 5-0. We're going to
Item #10G- Moved from Item #16B5
RATE OF PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR ALL BUS OPERATIONS
AND OFFICE STAFF OF THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
SYSTEM- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here we go, B-5, pay to advertise
CAT system.
MR. HARRINGTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Bob Harrington; manager of Metropolitan Planning
Organization. Basically, we're coming back to you this afternoon
following a previous meeting where we had presented a possibility of
supplementing the current contract with McDonald Transit and
Page 201
March 26, 2002
Associates who provide the service for our transit system here in
Collier County, looking at some pay increases for their drivers and
for their office staff.
What we've presented to you today with your attachments to
your agenda item is basically a breakdown that was requested by
Commissioner Coyle that explains how much each of the -- each of
the drivers would be getting, and it gives a complete breakdown of
the office staff also. I've also got with me today representatives from
McDonald Transit here that can probably better break down their
contract process for you, so basically I'll let -- I'll mm it over to them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's -- I was the one who pulled
this. And rather than stretching it out, just let me make a quick
statement, and then we'll get on with it. Okay? MR. HARRINGTON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just the principle that when we
have a contract with somebody they are responsible for managing it,
and they're responsible for managing the people. And, secondly, if
we're having a trouble -- having problems losing drivers that have
been trained, that is most easily dealt with by having those drivers
sign an agreement at the time they're hired that they, after receiving
training, will remain on the job for a specified period of time or else
they have to pay us for the training. I've used that method in my own
business, and it works fine and -- and I just wanted to make that
comment just for the purpose of encouraging us to give some more
thought to these contracts. It was not to interfere with this process
that we're going through now.
MR. HARRINGTON: I need to let you know that your idea is
an outstanding idea, and we are implementing that. It is going to be,
like, a signed contract process. As we bring on drivers, if they leave
prior to a set amount of time, they would have to pay us back for the
training that they received for their CDL license and such.
Page 202
March 26, 2002
Also, something we -- I need to bring out is this contract was the
first time that Collier County had ever entered into this. We are
looking at a huge amount of variables that could possibly happen.
The things that happened were wonderful for the transit business.
But in the same time we were losing drivers and trying to keep up
with the rider ship that is exploding here in Collier County, and that's
when they came to us with the proposal that we needed to do
something because, as you know, the riders on those buses are your
constituents, and we want to do what we can to better the service and
to keep these folks on the buses and look to the future in pulling some
of these single-occupancy vehicles off the road as we grow and grow
as we're doing now. But I do have -- if there are any questions
regarding the contract itself, McDonald -- McDonald and Associates
do have representatives here today to speak to those questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no other questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would just like to add one
more thing. The remainder of this contract I hope that we don't have
to go through this exercise again.
MR. HARRINGTON: No, sir. I don't think we will. All of this
has been taken into consideration as we came up with the figures that
are before you today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, one other thing, one piece of
information you didn't have that I -- that I think you need to have.
Jim Mudd, deputy county manager for the record. This was -- this
was an advertised contract that went out on request for proposal, and
McDonald was the only bidder. Okay. So they're sole bidder, and
this doesn't break and get us into some kind of bid war with a -- a
proposal or a company that bid that didn't get it because of a certain
dollar amount. So we checked on that. They are the only bidder to
this contract.
Page 203
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And out in the real world I
know that when I give a price to a customer that I got to stick with it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. So we got a motion for
approval. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by
Commissioner Henning. Second from Commissioner Fiala. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
Anyone opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 4-1.
vote was Commissioner Coyle.
MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you.
Oh, excuse me.
The dissenting
Item #1 OH- Moved from Item # 16A9
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ABATEMENT OF
VIOLATION AND COMPROMISE OF LIEN IN TWO CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIEN FORECLOSURES ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. ANTHONY J. VARANO, CASE NOS. 99-4226-CA
AND 00-3430-CA- STAFF DIRECTED TO REJECT CURRENT
OFFER AND GO BACK TO NEGOTIATION TABLE WITH
CONDITIONS
Page 204
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The next item, if I'm not mistaken, is
16-A-9.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, Commissioner Coletta, I
pulled that one, and I just have a little bit of problem. And I'm sure
everybody read their agenda packet that we're settling for $2,500 on a
code enforcement violation that adds up to quite a bit more money
than twenty-five -- I'm sorry, $25,000. Looking at the -- the property
-- set property for sale or if it's under contract, knowing that area I
know it is worth a considerable amount of money.
MS. CHADWELL: If I might explain to the board. Good
afternoon, I'm Ellen Chadwell. I'm assistant county attorney. I
crafted this settlement agreement. Rochelle and I are recommending
it to the board, so I feel like you need to hear our reasons why in light
of Commissioner Henning's concern.
If I could explain to you what the basis of this proceeding is, is
Mr. Varano was found in violation by our Code Enforcement Board
as to the Golden Gate Estate parcel in 1994. A fine was imposed at
$250 a day at that time and has been accruing since that time period.
Mr. Varano was fined for the existence of an abandoned structure.
He had obtain a building permit, commenced construction, was
unable to complete it.
In '97 he was violated on a property that he owns on Washington
Street, which is an industrially zoned property, for accumulation of
litter and weeds and abandoned or disabled vehicles and motor homes
and trailers and various things of that sort. An order was imposed at
that point, and at $250 a day the fine accrued from February of'98 to
date.
These fines currently total over $1 million from both of these
properties. We have two foreclosure actions pending. One was filed
by my predecessor at the very beginning of 2000, and I filed a second
Page 205
March 26, 2002
one seeking to foreclose on both of these properties based on the code
enforcement lien. Excuse me. Coincidentally this -- the very first suit
against Mr. Varano has been the very first Code Enforcement Board
lien foreclosure ever initiated by this county, so we have attempted to
-- to use the foreclosure procedure now as to -- to get the compliance
on parcels -- excuse me, parcels where the violations remain, and this
is what we have here.
Mr. Varano through his attorney has -- has attempted to
cooperate. Unfortunately, the properties at this point in time are --
are unmarketable.
Mr. Varano claims to have financial -- is to be on a fixed income
-- financial difficulties, and the fines have grown to such a point now
that he can't sell a property as long as this lien's imposed.
So we looked at our primary objectives on these types of
foreclosures as to, number one, bring the property into compliance.
That's our job. That's our obligation. Number two, to recover all the
costs that the county has incurred to date. And, number three, to
recover a portion of fine, and I say a portion because all the caSes in
my office are in such a situation that the fines are -- have -- the
violations haven't been corrected, so the fines have accrued to a point
where the fines far exceed the value of the property, so there's no way
I can recover all of the fine because I'm limited to a foreclosure sale
as my ultimate remedy. Up until 2001 we can't even recover
deficiency judgment. So once I elect to go with foreclosure, then
that's my remedy, so whatever I might get at a foreclosure sale is
what I can hope to recover on behalf of the county.
So what we have proposed was a settlement that allowed Mr.
Varano to sell the Golden Gate Estate parcel and to provide us with a
contract within 45 days of the date this board might execute this
agreement so that we can verify he has a purchaser. Closing is to
occur within a certain period of time and then the violation is to be
Page 206
March 26, 2002
cured on that property within 60 days.
The agreement provides that he will pay us $5,000 out -- out of
that closing and use the proceeds to clear the property on Washington
Street removing all the vehicles and the trash and everything that's on
that one. He has 60 days from the time of the closing on the Golden
Gate Estate parcel to clear the violation on the Washington Street
property and at that time pay us $20,000 at which point we'll release
the liens.
So we -- we feel like there are a lot of things that are being
accomplished by this agreement. Yeah, we are compromising the
lien. You're only recovering $25,000. Potentially one could go
forward to foreclosure. You could incur the expense and litigation.
Mr. Varano has raised some affirmative defenses. He was found
to be 85 percent disabled back in '81. They have asserted that as an
affirmative defense in the foreclosure action. If the Court deems that
a valid legal defense, we will have to go to a bench trial on this one.
Typically in foreclosures you can get a summary judgment, makes
things nice and quick, but this is not likely to be the case, so we're
looking at some litigation expenses possibly hiring an expert, maybe
ten to fifteen thousand dollars in expenses to go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Chadwell, the discussion
that we had yesterday, did you get -- indicate anything that I was
leaning towards foreclosure?
MS. CHADWELL: Did I--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Indicate anything that I was
going to go and recommend to the board foreclosure on this piece of
property?
MS. CHADWELL: No. You didn't indicate to me -- you
simply inquired as to the terms of the settlement and what I thought
the property was worth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly. Under that discussion
Page 207
March 26, 2002
MS. CHADWELL: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Out of that discussion what was
the findings of the value of the property?
MS. CHADWELL: I contacted Kevin Hendrix, who has been
with real property for quite a period of time, and asked him what he
thought the property was worth. He thought the property was worth
60,000 an acre. It's a 2 1/2 acre parcel. This is in Golden Gate
Estates. That would put it at about 150,000. It's assessed at 65,000
currently, and I did a little sales research this morning, and I think
there is a January sale out there that indicates probably 54,000 an
acre. So the value of that property today as we stand is probably
somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000 in my opinion, and I'm not
an appraiser.
So, you know, there is some value in the property and-- but--
and it -- certainly if it's this board's desire to direct staff that on these
cases we will recover to the fullest extent of the property, then
certainly we'll abide by that.
We have looked at our objectives as being, number one, like I
said, getting the property into compliance, trying to recoup our costs,
trying to avoid taking title to property and managing it and being
responsible for any potential problems with the property. I don't
know that we're in the property management business, and there's no
guarantee that someone will sell this at foreclosure so it puts -- it puts
-- it pays for our cost. We avoid that liability. We get some $24,000
-- I'm deducting what I think the county has into it for prosecution.
That's free and clear.
I -- certainly it's a bargain for the property owner. There's no
doubt. We have looked at the mitigating factors and -- and it's been
my position -- and if I'm needing more different direction, I'm sure
you will give it to me, but it's been my position that to achieve our
Page 208
March 26, 2002
ultimate goal if the property owner is cooperative, to work with them
to try to achieve that goal.
And at any rate, I -- I am here recommending the settlement
agreement. Those are the terms. If you have any questions, I'll be
happy to answer those. There is -- let me just point out one final
thing, Mr. Chairman, that is that these violations do remain on the
property. And in the event that we end up holding title to the
property we will have the expense in clearing and cleaning up these
violations in addition to paying the tax liens and the special sewer
assessments and all those things that remain on the property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Where do you fit into
this?
MR. SHAPIRO: My name is Mark Shapiro, and I'm the
attorney for Anthony Varano who is the defendant in this action.
This is Mr. Varano right here (indicating). We have filed some
affirmative defenses in this action, and one of them is that he is
disabled, and I won't go into all that unless you want me to, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Here's what-- where I
need to get. As Ellen stated the property's worth over $100,000, and
I can tell you over the weekend on 5th Avenue on the same road 2
1/2 acres the person is asking over $200,000 for 2 1/2 acres. I don't
know if this is your property or not, but what I'm -- where I'm trying
to go with it is $25,000 for a violation of a fines going over $1
million, wow, what a deal. And I just want to be more equitable to
the taxpayers.
That's all.
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Well, there's a couple things I would
like to say. First of all, what ended up happening is he used to be a
general contractor, so he began building a structure on that property.
Right now there is a partially built structure. I don't know if any of
you have seen it, but there's a partially built structure on there which
Page 209
March 26, 2002
over the years has been -- is weather beaten, is falling apart. And
whoever buys this property, that's going to be an expense for them to
clear this structure off. So I'm not exactly sure how much the
demolition would cost, but I think that that could negatively impact
the value of the property.
But, I mean, make no mistake, if it's the board's intent to
make as much money as they can from this, then the right thing for
the board to do would be to continue with the foreclosure and take
back the property and sell it themselves. If the board's intent is to get
the violations cleared up as quickly as possible and, quite frankly, do
the right thing -- you have a person here who is on a fixed income,
totally disabled.
He has virtually three assets other than he currently lives in a
single-wide mobile home, one bedroom with him and his wife. His
only assets that he has is the property on 5th Avenue, the Washington
Avenue property, and some of the cars that are stored on the
Washington Avenue property. So we thought that this would be a
compromise to get the violations cleared up as quickly as possible.
And, quite frankly, he would have cleared the violations up; however,
it costs money to do that. It costs money to remove the structure
that's currently the 5th Avenue property that he doesn't have. It costs
money to clear the vehicles off the lot on Washington Avenue and to
clear the trees off that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we compromise,
Mr. Shapiro?
MR. SHAPIRO: I mean, what do you mean by compromise?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, has the property sold?
Do you have a contract on it?
MR. SHAPIRO: There is no written contract.
There is someone that I believe will -- will sign a contract pending
the outcome of what happens today.
Page 210
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How about settle for
half of the proceeds of the contract?
MS. CHADWELL: If I might address the board. I think if the
board wants to make -- if the board rejects this proposal and wants to
make a counteroffer, that's perfectly fine. I would ask, though, for
purposes of clarity and -- and -- and for us to understand how the
board feels as a board on this issue to -- to take up a motion as to
whether to approve this or reject it, and then perhaps Commissioner
Henning would like to then make a motion as to what -- what might
be a counteroffer. That would be my proposal if that's where we're
going.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to poll the rest of the board
on this particular issue because there's many factors to this. I
understand where Commissioner Henning's coming from and the
dollar and cents issue.
I also understand the -- the compassion issue with the gentleman and
his problems that he's been through. I don't quite see a Larry Parks
situation here, you know, though at first I was wondering.
I feel that our -- that the attorney's office did a wonderful job,
and I hate to get in here and start muddying the waters at this point in
time. Maybe we need to set up a pro forma later what we expect
them to do. I want to see the property clean. I want to see ambience
returned to the area. That's one of the main objectives. I agree with
it. That's something we set up a long time ago, the commission did.
The dollars and cents issue is very important, but if you look through
our book, there's been settlement after settlement. Everything from
Waste Management on through with different issues, especially when
the dollar amount gets to a certain amount.
At this particular time, I'd be inclined to vote this particular
thing for approval and then come back later and address it as an issue
how we can expect performance in the future.
Page 211
March 26, 2002
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there's one other issue or
principle involved here, and that's the one of deterrence. I believe
that the action we take has to be substantial enough that it will deter
other people from letting property sit and deteriorate for a long time.
It appears to me that -- that this property could have been sold
some time ago to resolve this issue had there been an inclination to
do so. So I understand Commissioner Henning's concern, and I think
there -- I think we have to keep in mind the precedent that we set
with respect to these kinds of things and how much our action will
serve to deter people from doing the same sort of thing in the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to also remind you that we
made settlements for different claims that were without basis just for
the simple fact that the legal costs were going to exceed the value of
it. But let's go down the line and get some other ideas. Do you have anything to comment on?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm just listening. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think we have a
negotiation, sir. And I'm not going to negotiate with you from the
dias, but I'd like our attorney to negotiate with you because I see a
number of factors in here where the violations could have been
cleared up. You could have sold a piece of property. There's a lot of
options in here. I do empathize with the person's situation, but I
would like to see our attorney go back and renegotiate this situation
with you to put us in a more equitable situation for settlement. MR. SHAPIRO: If I can speak about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So do you want to just go ahead and
direct staff to do that and make it in the form of a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. I move that staff meet with
the gentleman's attorney and negotiate a settlement that not only
Page 212
March 26, 2002
covers getting things cleaned up, getting the properties restored, but
that there is an equity settlement with Collier County for the fact that
this has been in disarray for a long time. And property values have
continued to go up. So I'd like to send it back to the negotiation
table.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner Carter, does that include a
rejection at this point of the present proposed amount of settlement?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MS. CHADWELL: Would the board like to give us any idea
what they feel anywhere between the value of the property we might
obtain at foreclosure sale and the $25,000 might be appropriate
because we--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't know. Wait a
minute. I'm not sure I want to go there. I never -- you know, it's like
telling me -- no. No. I'm not going there. That's a public record. I
think that -- leaves that up to the negotiator's skills and bargainers to
work through the situation to find some equity.
MR. SHAPIRO: I think, Commissioners, if I could-- I don't
know if I have a chance to speak to this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead and speak.
MR. SHAPIRO: First of all, when you say direct the attorney --
the county attorney to negotiate this, I thought that's what we had
been doing. What we brought to you today was the product of our
negotiations. I know it has to be approved by the county
commission, but this was -- I mean, in other words, the county did
not take our first number. In fact, this was something proposed by
the county. Our proposal was much less.
As far as a deterrent, I realize that the properties are worth
considerably more than the fine that will be paid, but to a person in
Page 213
March 26, 2002
Mr. Varano's position, $25,000 is a whole lot of money for a person
that is on fixed income, and I know that this is a deterrent for him.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm not happy with the
negotiation, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- and I think that we can
come out with an equitable solution taking -- under the consideration
of the evidence that you found yesterday of the property values and
take it under consideration of Mr. Varano's condition, and I just don't
see that this is equitable consideration under the circumstances.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What's the total value of the
properties that are in question?
MS. CHADWELL: What value do you want? Do you want a
fair market value, assessed value, or what I think you can get at
foreclosure sale?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I want to know what fair
market value is, and if they were put on the market what is -- you
know, you can go in there and look around. Somewhere between fair
market and what you would get at a foreclosure sale is the number.
MS. CHADWELL: Right. I assume it would be less than fair
market value, and they would have to take into account the various
liens. There are other liens on-- well, on both of the properties and
what have you, but I've -- I've considered -- I mean, my calculations
are best-case scenario. At a foreclosure sale you're looking at a
potential recovery between one hundred fifty and one hundred eighty
thousand dollars. So there is -- there is a big spread there. And, you
know, we'll be happy to go back and take it up with Mr. Varano and
his attorney. We may be requesting a shade meeting with the board
prior to coming back with a proposed agreement. That might be the
best way to handle it and each of these in the future because I do have
a few that are coming up, and they all have their stories and different
Page 214
March 26, 2002
situations so...
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think that's a good idea, and we
ought to have a shade meeting on some of these so that we
understand the totality of the situation and not address it in this
manner from the dias.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioners, the other thing to, I guess,
consider is the reason the fine is so high is he's been -- being charged
$250 a day on each property. And one of the affirmative defenses is
we're attacking the -- I guess, the propriety of levying these fines in
the first place. I mean, what I'm saying is that we have a legal
position on our side also which we're willing to argue, if necessary, at
court, and that's why I think, you know, we're coming here today with
what I thought was a win-win situation for everybody, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
on this property as well?
MS. CHADWELL: Yeah.
worth of liens on the properties.
Did you say there were other liens
There's approximately $22,000
There is a issue with a mortgage on
the one property of-- there hasn't been a satisfaction of mortgage
recorded, but we do believe that their interest has probably dropped
out. I'm not concerned about the mortgagee at this point in time.
MR. SHAPIRO: There is.a mortgage on the 5th Avenue
property which due to Mr. Varano's disability he does not remember
if it had been paid or not. Now, they have never moved to foreclose,
and the balloon payment came due, I think, about six years ago, and
they've never moved to foreclose, but there's also not a satisfaction.
And I'm really not in a position to know whether or not that has been
paid or not, and Mr. Varano doesn't remember.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if we discuss this any
more, the sheriffs going to have to pull out his gun for abuse. So
why don't we call the question and vote on it, and let's see what we
Page 215
March 26, 2002
can come up with when it comes back to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got a motion by Commissioner
Carter, was it?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we got a second by --
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: By who?
MS. FILSON: Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
is there any other discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only thing I'm going to mention
is the fact that I am concerned that we're sitting up here -- in about a
20-minute span, we're trying to place judgment where people have
placed hours and hours of time in. I will not vote for this myself just
to let you know up front. I think it's a travesty the way we're taking
this thing in bits and pieces. You're not considering the liens. You're
not considering all the other factors, the man's disability. It's a
terrible thing that we're doing here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I feel that our county attorney
has worked very long and hard in bringing this to us until she's done
her homework, so I too will vote against it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll call the motion. All those
in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And opposed. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 3-2, dissenting votes from
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta are the opposing
Okay. Commissioner Henning. And
Page 216
March 26, 2002
votes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there any direction you'd like us to take or
just continue with the litigation?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just what we just said here.
I guess that was the directions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Negotiate. Negotiation.
MR. SHAPIRO: I don't know that we're willing to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you go off and think about
that, sir.
Item #10I- Moved from Item #16A18
BUDGET APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 TO
REALLOCATE RESERVE FUNDS FOR THE IMMOKALEE
HOUSING INITIATIVE
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What's the last item, Mr.
Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: Item was 16-A-18 which became 10-I which was
the budget amendment to reallocate some reserve funds for the
Immokalee Housing Initiative Program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 16-A. I got it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, the reason I
pulled this is the figures that I seen was very confusing, and I got
closer after meeting with several staff members to explain it to me.
And Michelle was just going to give an estimate of what -- where she
has to date on the disposals of trailers.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
enforcement director. I do need to clarify that the amount that was
expended in fiscal year '01-'02 is actually 11,000 -- a little over -- is
$11,280, and the balance as of February of the -- from fiscal year '01-
Page 217
March 26, 2002
'02 to February of'02 -- because we don't have a recent March
invoice from the department -- is about $8,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's going to be at
best $15,000 --
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- this year.
MR. ARNOLD: For a total.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MS. ARNOLD: A total of 15,000 -- no, actually this -- no, there
is a total of roughly 20,000 for the both fiscal years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I was going to say
23,000, but 23,000 total for the both fiscal years?
MR. MUDD: If you project the rest of the remaining year based
on what we seen so far this year, it can -- it can get close to there, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just think it's more
responsible to allocate enough money to cover this great program and
put the rest into the General Fund reserves. And if you can give us a
figure, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve.
MS. ARNOLD: I think that the figure would be probably
40,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's have an auction.
Are you sure?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that going to be enough? I'll
make a motion to approve $40,000.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Carter. Now I'll open it up for
discussion and questions. I got a question.
Michelle, we're taking into consideration that our busy time of
this is probably going to be the beginning of the summer or end of the
Page 218
March 26, 2002
migrant season.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. It's probably going to be later on in the -
- late in this fiscal year, beginning next fiscal year because -- and the
reason why I'm saying that is because of the program that you-all
adopted in January has it at 12-month period, and maybe there's
going to be additional trailers being brought in towards the end of
that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My concern is, I don't want to do
anything that's going to -- to raise any kind of problems with the
initiative in Immokalee to be able to remove these substandard
houses that's been around for 40-some years, these substandard
trailers.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if we need to move more trailers
and we need more disposal money, we will be right back here asking
you for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I have no objection.
Any other comments? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, I'll call for the
question. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Item # 15A,B,&C
UPDATE REGARDING SIGN FOR MR. CHAMI AT THE TOWN
MARKET PROJECT IN OLDE CYPRESS; CHAIR DIRECTED TO
FORWARD A LETTER TO PORTER GOSS REGARDING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS; AND STAFF
DIRECTED TO RECOMMEND AN ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE THAT COULD PURSUE AN ANNUAL ART FAIR.
Page 219
March 26, 2002
And with that we're going to go to staff communications. One
more? Joe, I see--
MR. OLLIFF: Under staff communication,
Mr. Chairman, I just didn't want this Tuesday to pass, given the
discussion we had regarding Mr. Chami last Tuesday, without you
getting a brief, at least, update on that so that you didn't think that we
did nothing on the issue since the last time that we met on it. Joe's
here to give you a little brief.
MR. SCHMITT: I'll just give you a brief rundown. Went
through a lot of agonizing thought over this trying to help Mr. Chami
out, the staff, but the bottom line is there are three issues as we
discussed; the sign, the impact fees, and the color. I sent Mr. Ken
Cuyler, Mr. Chami's attorney I sent him a letter last Thursday
outlining the staff's position.
With regard to the sign, I told him -- well, let me start, Ken
wanted the staff to approve the erection of the sign that he purchased
which was a sign of 80 square feet, 15 foot high. I told him I did not
have the authority to approve that. It would be a violation of Land
Development Code. I informed him that if Mr. Chami wanted this in
the letter that if he wanted to erect the sign, the sign had to conform
with Land Development Code which specifies a sign of 60 square
feet total area, meaning the sign itself no -- no taller than 8 feet. So
that was the first stipulation.
Second, the color we -- we discussed the color issue. The color
issue, frankly, we agreed that within two years that he would repaint,
and it does violate the current guidelines under the Land
Development Code, but that was not the burning issue.
The most significant issue, the third issue, was the impact fees.
We discussed prorating that over a three-year period. Regretfully, the
county attorney's office opined that there was no present means to
Page 220
March 26, 2002
lawfully defer any payment of required impact fees, and I so
informed that the only option that Mr. Chami had was to pay the
impact fees under protest, and those fees were $75,253.60. He could
pay those under protest. He would pay a fee then under protest to
review those and -- and review those with the county as to what they
believe the assessed fees should be. And that's where we stand.
Also, going back to the sign issue, I did inform Mr. Chami that
we certainly could come to the board -- when he requests -- submits
for the variance for the sign, we could come to the board and ask that
the fees be paid out of the General Fund. So the General Fund would
provide fees into the Fund 113 to defray the cost of that petition -- or
that request for waiver.
At the end of his letter, he asked about a clean certificate of
occupancy. By no means would we choose to do that. We would
issue a temporary CO. It provided while we go through the issue
with the -- with the impact fees. That's where we're at.
Frankly, in the last week and a half as I noted during our last
board meeting, that he probably was at least within 30 days of
opening. It's probably longer there. He still has a final building
inspection, final roofing inspection, final plumbing, final mechanical,
final electrical, and final fire. There's been no fire inspections at all,
so those certainly are still pending, and there's been no scheduled
inspections since the meeting of two weeks ago, and certainly it's
nothing -- that is not at-- at because of county staff, we're prepared to
assist in any way we can to help him get through the inspection. So
that's where we're at.
Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I -- I would hope that we
would insist that he, as every other businessperson in Collier County,
must adhere to the sign ordinance.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And that -- that was my position. I -- the
Page 221
March 26, 2002
proposal, again, to the staff was to allow him to put the sign up that
violated the code as he submitted for the variance, and we did discuss
naturally how -- or how he did get to this point because -- let's put it
where it is -- the poor guidance from former members of the staff.
But -- but I told him I could not approve that. As I told him that
six weeks ago and told him that I certainly would come to each one
of you individually and explain the entire circumstances of how he
got to where he is today and describe in his request for variance the
mitigating -- extenuating and mitigating circumstances around this
issue, and leave it to your disposal whether or not you would approve
of the 80-square-foot sign versus the 60, but I would not approve that.
That's -- I just don't -- I have no legal basis to do that.
And the other issue is the most contentious issue again was the
impact fees. There was a mistake. We know there was a mistake
made. I could brief each of you individually on the history of that
mistake, but be that as it may, he does owe the impact fees. I have no
authority to waive those fees. The only authority you would have as
the board is you would have to amend the LDC to allow some
mechanism to do that. I sent each of you an e-mail kind of
expressing that to approve a motion that impact fees policies allow
for the deferring of fees, which is another avenue. If he was allowed
to defer the fees until such time it was -- a decision was made as to
whether or not the fees were due. But I don't have the authority to do
that. That would be something you would have to do, but
understanding if you do that you're again amending the code, and that
would be certainly open to anybody who disputed impact fees. So --
so you're kind of, as they say, opening a Pandora's Box in this regard.
I have not heard back from Mr. Ken Cuyler nor Mr. Chami, so
until he comes in and requests a variance, we're standing by. I will
assist in any way I can to request a variance.
Now, the sign variance has nothing to do with the issuing of a
Page 222
March 26, 2002
CO. He can get a CO tomorrow if he was prepared to open the
business tomorrow. The issues with the building inspection are really
primarily between he and his builder. His builder has not scheduled
any of those -- any of those inspections yet. So that's where we're at.
I so informed him, and I'm awaiting a response.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Thank you, Mr. Schmitt.
Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. We're good to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ramiro.
MR. MANALICH: I don't think I want to prolong this anymore.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. Everybody else has. It's
your turn now.
MR. MANALICH: Well, I just wanted to mention I had the
privilege and honor to be invited to a very nice gathering last night.
It was a combination of the University Women's Association, the
Friends of the Library, and the World Baker and Cafeteria, the
neighbor-to-neighbor program that had several speakers regarding
Cuban-American relations and the Cuban community here in Collier
County. Rather fascinating and I think it was very much enjoyed by
everyone in attendance. Fascinating story there about one of the
panelists that was -- I think her name was Hilda Perez that came over
in a boat and almost died at sea and about her struggles, and I think
everyone very much appreciated what the United States has -- the
opportunity that's extended to them as immigrants to come here and
renew their -- begin anew their lives.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that. Comments,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Just want to have the
opportunity to have a few minutes watching TV on our channel,
Channel 16. Commissioner Carter was on there talking about the
Page 223
March 26, 2002
water symposium, and I -- you know, I found it so interesting and
waiting for more information on it and I -- and I think it's very
important to the community of this symposium education about water
conservation that just a question of Commissioner Carter. Do -- do
we have means of distributing flYers to all the students so they can
take it home, or should we give direction to staff to make that -- make
that happen and make sure that every one goes in the backpack?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Henning, I
appreciate the comments. For an update on the water symposium, I
would suggest you go to watersymposium.org, and that will give you
a real nice overview of where we are. It's my understanding that the
school board system will put out a flyer notification to all of the
students so they can get all the families to come over to May 4, which
is a festival, May 4 from 11 to 3 at International College. We're
calling it Kid's Day, and it's a lot of neat activities, and you can learn
some things about water, but most of all you can come and have a
good time. Everything is free by the way. That is a free day, so that
should spark some interest out there. So that's where it's moving. All
the programs are in place with the brochure pretty close to being done
to be ready to go out, and stay tuned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: While you got the floor, do you have
any other comments?
I wouldn't bring up another
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
thing, sir.
it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go to you, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't be. We're looking forward to
Page 224
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four things. First of all,
Commissioner Carter had a very good idea with respect to fines for
running red lights. Now, is there anything we can do about reviving
that if it means sending a letter to Tallahassee asking for something to
be done? Does the board want to do that? I think it's an excellent
idea and we should pursue it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I took the liberties of already
contacting Ralph Lazar's office which is right next door to ours.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Without board approval?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, not so much with the board but
as a private citizen very interested in what we're doing and totally
believing in Mr. Carter's initiative, and they tried to get it added onto
that one other bill that they have going -- what is that there, the drag
racing bill. They removed it for fear of the fact that a new item added
this late in the day might throw it off, but definitely next year we
have people that are very interested in picking this up and running
further with it. This is one of the reasons you can go to Tallahassee
next year. It's your mm.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yourself and three others. That's
right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the budget amendment that is in
our packet, there are two projects that affect the City of Naples. One
is the Sandpiper-U.S. 41 intersection improvement for $125,000 and
$400,000 for the Seagate-Crayton Road intersection improvement.
They have both been taken out of the budget and I think for good
reason, but the -- the one project, the $125,000 project for Sandpiper
and U.S. 41, is well into the planning stages and can be initiated in
this fiscal year, whereas, the other one is nowhere near ready. And I
-- it makes logical -- it's very logical that we should remove that from
the budget. So I'm asking that the board if we can retain the
Page 225
March 26, 2002
$125,000 for the Sandpiper-41 intersection improvements and then
transfer or eliminate the $400,000 improvements for Seagate and
Crayton Road. Is that the kind of guidance you need, Tom?
MR. OLLIFF: The board had made a commitment to -- to the
City of Naples to fund those projects because they were joint
city/county benefiting type transportation construction projects. We
had originally gotten some information from the city indicating that
neither of those projects was going to go forward in this fiscal year,
and that's why they were on the list in that budget amendment. If
Commissioner Coyle has heard more recently that that project is a
possibility of a go this fiscal year, then obviously we would want to
maintain our commitments that we had made earlier as part of the
fiscal-year budget.
So I guess we can just -- perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you could even
direct the commissioner that we'll just assume it's still a live project
unless we hear back from the commissioner-- from the city
otherwise.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am meeting with them in
55 minutes, and we're going to go over this entire project. If there is
any indication that they are not prepared to proceed this fiscal year, I
will get back to you, and we'll transfer that money.
MR. OLLIFF: Or if there's an indication that they don't need
our money.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Or if they can find it somewhere
else; right?
MR. OLLIFF: There was some work with the developer on the
project being built on the southeast comer of that intersection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The developer's not going to
provide any money. They will, in fact -- we're going to get the
developer to transfer property which can be used free of charge, but
Page 226
March 26, 2002
they won't -- won't provide money. But I'll know tonight, and if
there's any indication this thing is not a go, then I'll let the board
know.
The City of Naples also has sent me a letter concerning
community development block grants. Apparently Secretary
Martinez of the Housing and Urban Development Department has --
has decided to exclude nine communities, including the City of
Naples, from any CDBG funds. Now, of course, the City of Naples
was planning on -- on helping fund the River Park Recreation Center
with some of the CDBG funding they -- they were entitled to in
accordance with our agreement.
They are asking that we send a letter to the secretary of HUD
asking him to reconsider and -- and -- and specifying the reason, the
use for this property, use for this money as River Park
Redevelopment, and I can have a copy of their letter to Porter Goss
that would provide a format for our letter to -- to Secretary Martinez
and to Porter Goss. So if-- if the board would be willing to do that,
maybe I could get with the staff and draft a letter and ask --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to draft it, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can draft. I thought I would
probably use some of their information and you wouldn't have to get
too involved.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we ought to give the
Chair direction under his signature to follow through on that. I saw
where they had written Porter Goss. I just sent a note off to them,
too, saying we support that. I mean I support it. I couldn't speak for
the board. We've got to do everything we can to protect those funds
for the city.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if that takes a motion, I'll
make that motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
Page 227
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion. We have
a second. 'All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. And one
final thing, I sent to all the members of the board a memo concerning
a potential annual event where the Smithsonian Institution would
have some exhibits down here. I think Commissioner Henning's
comment earlier in the day that some kind of art fair, we should -- we
should start thinking about for the county. I think that's an excellent
idea.
We might be able to combine those two events and create
something that is -- is -- is really big for the entire county. I
understand that many other counties in the state have similar annual
events that brings the entire county together and -- and attracts
tourists of course. So if you believe that we should proceed with this,
I would like to ask if the board would give the staff direction to
recommend to us the kind of organizational structure or committee
that should pursue this. And -- and if you're reluctant to make a
decision on that right now because you don't have enough
information, we can discuss it later.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Commissioner, I read in
the letter -- and that was a result of Karen Lee bringing in the
Smithsonian up to the -- up north here and his conversation here, I
believe, afterwards with you. I think it's a great idea to get the
Smithsonian involved here, and we can incorporate it into a arts-type
fair that would be an excellent idea. I don't have any problem with
going forward and giving staff direction to look into it, how we could
best do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I would like to maybe
probably do a workshop with the industry, the tourist board members.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chamber of Commerce, TDC?
Page 228
March 26, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And -- and see -- get --
get some input if-- if we're going to do this and make it like they
have in Sarasota County, it's huge. But given the fact of the-- the
type of people that we attract here in Collier County because we've
done a -- or they have done a good job of building a community, then
I think it would be fabulous.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd also like to kind of-- I believe I
wrote you a letter back -- or at least I put it down on paper. No, I
actually wrote it, so I don't know if you got it yet or not, but anyway
what I said was, not only am I in favor of that, I am delighted we're
striking up a rapport with the Smithsonian. Marco Island works a lot
with the Smithsonian right now, and they're hoping at some point in
time if they raise enough funds to build their historical museum, and
they have some of their artifacts right now stored -- this is what I was
writing to you. I hope you will get it one of these days. And so I
think this is a wonderful way to strike up a great rapport with them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think there are a lot of
benefits that we can schedule tours to historic places like Roberts
Ranch or Everglades City. I think there's some fascinating history
down there in Everglades City, other than the commissioner here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The relic?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the relic. But I think it will
encourage interest in our museums, businesses, or the art association
can sponsor exhibits if they wish to. I just think that -- that it could
be a great event. And -- but -- but as Commissioner Henning points
out, we're going to have to get wide participation because
everybody's got to be involved in this thing to make sure it comes off
properly. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's it. The only thing I got is
Page 229
go home.
March 26, 2002
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Carter and carried 5/0, (with exception of Item gl 7A which was a 4/1
vote with Commissioner Carter opposing) that the following items
under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or
adopted: *****
Item gl 6Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
SHALOM 2000 BUILDING ADDITION AND RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A2
AMEND A GRANT AGREEMENT FROM THE FLORIDA FISH
AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION FOR
DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT
AWARDED BY $35,000 TO A TOTAL OF $46,000
Item # 16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
MEDICAL OFFICES AT NAPA RIDGE AND RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item # 16A4
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002-07, RE PETITION CARNY-200 I-AR-
1713, PEG RUBY, SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR,
Page 230
March 26, 2002
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION, REQUESTING
PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL APRIL 12 AND 13, 2002,
ON COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY AT THE VINEYARDS
COMMUNITY PARK LOCATED AT 6231 ARBOR
BOULEVARD
Item # 16A5
RESOLUTION 2002-146 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "L'ERMITAGE
AT GREY OAKS" W/RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item # 16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "STRADA BELLA"
AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item # 16A7
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "INDIGO LAKES UNIT
FIVE"
Item #16A8 - Deleted
Page 231
March 26, 2002
ADOPT RESOLUTIONS ENFORCING LIENS ON PROPERTIES
FOR CODE VIOLATIONS
Item # 16A9- Moved to Item # 1 OH
Item #16Al0
RESOLUTION 2002-147 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR "ISLAND WALK PHASE TWO"
Item #16Al 1
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "PINE AIR LAKES
UNIT THREE"
Item #16A12
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
TEMPLE SHALOM AND RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A13
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S
APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
CLERK OF COURTS FOR PROVISION OF SECRETARIAL
Page 232
March 26, 2002
SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY BY THE CLERK OF COURTS
Item #16A14
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL OF
THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
FOR PROVISION OF SECRETARIAL SERVICES TO THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BY THE CLERK
OF COURTS
Item #16A15
MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE FOR A TWO
HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND ($237,000) DOLLAR
LOAN TO BIG CYPRESS HOUSING CORPORATION TO
ASSIST IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAIN STREET
VILLAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN
IMMOKALEE. FUND SOURCE IS THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TRUST FUND
Item #16A16
REAPPROPRIATE $30,000 OF FUNDS FROM TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT RESERVES TO COVER FY02 BROCHURE
EXPENDITURES OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTS
Item #16A17
Page 233
March 26, 2002
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD TO AUTHORIZE PLAN REVIEW
AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS
UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (FBC); AND
ADOPTING A SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR SUCH SERVICES
Item #16A18 - Moved to Item #10I
Item #16B 1 - Moved to Item #1 OF
Item #16B2
BID #02-3347 FOR THE PELICAN BAY U.S. 41 BERM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM - AWARDED TO COLLIER
IRRIGATION - IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,914.00
Item #16B3
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR
THE LELY STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, NOT
TO EXCEED $2,600.00
Item #16B4
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR WORK ORDER NUMBER WMI-
02-04 WITH WILSON MILLER INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$78,100.00 FOR THE PREPARATION OF DESIGN DOCUMENTS
FOR IMPROVEMENTS OF 13TM STREET SW, FROM 16TM
AVENUE SW TO GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD, PROJECT
NUMBER 69068
Page 234
Item #16B5 - Moved to Item #10G
March 26, 2002
Item #16B6
WORK ORDER NO. APC-FT-02-01 WITH APAC, INC., FOR
TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$79,814.45 ON GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AT 53lm STREET
SW, PROJECT NO. 60016
Item # 16B7
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR A MID-YEAR BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL
PROJECT BUDGET TO BRING IT IN LINE WITH THE FY02
TRANSPORTATION 5 YEAR WORK PROGRAM AS
PRESENTED DURING THE TRANSPORTATION SEGMENT OF
THE 2001 AUIR- PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGE EQUALS
$41,595,221
Item # 16C 1
WORK ORDER SC-02-45 TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY FOR GENERAL CONTRACTING SERVICES
RELATED TO NOISE ISSUES AT THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT 70063 -
AWARDED TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY- IN
THE AMOUNT OF $61,000
Item #16C2
Page 235
March 26, 2002
EXECUTION OF SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE
TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF
WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16C3
CHANGE ORDER 1 TO GULF STATES INC. FOR THE
VINEYARDS REUSE WATER AUTOMATION PROJECT,
CONTRACT 01-3211, IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,210
Item # 16C4
WORK ORDER GH-FT-02-3 WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN
LLC, FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIELD
EXPANSION TO 20-MGD, PROJECT 70892, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $391,365
Item #16C5
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF
APPROXIMATELY $75,000 FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE
MEASURE EXPENDITURES RESULTING FROM TROPICAL
STORM GABRIELLE - CONTRACT#02-RM-*2-09-21-20-016
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2002-148 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
Page 236
March 26, 2002
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
Item # 16C7
RESOLUTION 2002-149 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
Item # 16C8
RESOLUTION 2002-150 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 # 16C9
RESOLUTION 2002-151 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
Page 237
Item # 16C 10
March 26, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-152 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
Item #16C 11
RESOLUTION 2002-153 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 #16C12
ANNUAL SERVICE CONTRACT WITH U.S. FILTER FOR
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ODOR CONTROL UNITS AT
THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $39,600.00
Item #16C13
WORK ORDER GH-FT-02-4 WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN
LLC, FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN- SANITARY
SEWER AND POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENTS UPDATE
AND RECLAIMED WATER SUB-ELEMENT, PROJECTS 70070
Page 238
March 26, 2002
AND 73066, IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,500 - THIS EFFORT
REFLECTS FY2001 MASTER PLAN UPDATES
Item #16C14
FORMAL COMPETITION WAIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF
100 REMOTE TRANSMITTING UNITS FROM DATA FLOW
SYSTEMS, INC., FOR MONITORING WASTEWATER LIFT
STATIONS FOR THE COST OF $730,000
Item # 16D 1
A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE MARCO ISLAND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO DESIGNATE LAND FOR A
FUTURE MUSEUM ON MARCO ISLAND
Item # 16D2
AGREEMENT WITH DREAMBOUND ENTERPRISES, INC.,
FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF JO DEE MESSINA FOR THE
FOURTH ANNUAL COUNTRY JAM CONCERT ON APRIL 12
AND 13, 2002 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000
Item # 16E 1
BID #02-3329 FOR THE ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR READY
MIX CONCRETE TO SCHWAB READY MIX INC., AND
KREHLING INDUSTRIES FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
EXPENDITURE OF $25,000
Item #16E2
Page 239
March 26, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-154 REVISING THE EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH PROGRAM AS ESTABLISHED IN ORDINANCE 87-5
Item #16E3
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
FOR 800 MHZ RADIO MAINTENANCE-FY 02 COSTS ARE
$17,184 (TO BE REIMBURSED BY THE CITY OF NAPLES
Item # 16E4
THE PURCHASE OF COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT FROM
COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., TO UPGRADE
THE VHF PAGING SYSTEM UTILIZED BY PUBLIC SAFETY
AGENCIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,176.80
Item #16E5
CONTRACT #01-3291 "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CED
SERVICES" AWARDED TO THE FOLLOWING FIRMS: TBE
GROUP, HDR CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORP., LAW
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CH2M
HILL, JOHNSON ENGINEERING, HOLE MONTES, BARRACO
AND ASSOCIATES (ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT
$350,000)
Item #16E6
CONTRACT g01-3292 "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES" AWARDED TO
THE FOLLOWING FIRMS: JENKINS AND CHARLAND, CH2M
Page 240
March 26, 2002
HILL, AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, TKW
CONSULTING ENGINEERING, ANCHOR ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, PYPER ENGINEERING (ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT $175,000)
Item #16E7
RFP 02-3327 - ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ROADWAY
CONTRACTORS AWARDED TO BETTER ROADS, INC.,
BONNESS, INC., APAC-FLORIDA, INC., AND FLORIDA STATE
UNDERGROUND FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT
OF $700,000 TO $800,000
Item # 16E8
TWELVE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (1,215) COUNTY-OWNED
VOTING MACHINES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS VOTING
EQUIPMENT SURPLUSD AT A SALE TO BE HELD ON
FRIDAY, APRIL 5 AND FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2002, FROM 10AM
TO 2PM AT THE COUNTY'S SURPLUS WAREHOUSE
(ESTIMATED REVENUE $12,150)
Item #16E9
WORK ORDER #BSSW-02-01 ISSUED TO BARANY SCHMITT
SUMMERS WEAVER AND PARTNERS INCORPORATED, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $89,630.00, FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF EMS STATION #19 TO
BE LOCATED ON SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
Item # 16E 10
Page 241
March 26, 2002
MULTIYEAR TELEPHONE SWITCH MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT WITH AVAYA INC. USING STATE OF FLORIDA
CONTRACT PRICING AND MASTER AGREEMENT AT AN
ANNUAL COST OF $104,000
Item #16E 11
RESOLUTION 2002-155 (AMENDING RESOLUTION 02-120)
ESTABLISHING AN EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELLNESS
PREVENTION, INCENTIVE AND REIMBURSEMENT
PROGRAM TO REWARD EMPLOYEES WHO PARTICIPATE IN
COUNTY SPONSORED OR ENDORSED HEALTH AND
WELLNESS PROGRAMS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$35,000 ANNUALLY
Item # 16E 12
RESOLUTION 2002-156 APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN M/A COM PRIVATE RADIO SYSTEMS INC., AND
COLLIER COUNTY GENERATING ANNUAL REVENUE OF
$72,900
Item # 16F 1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL TO
ADVERTISE AN AMENDMENT TO AN ORDINANCE OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TO INCREASE THE MILLAGE
RATE FOR THE ISLES OF CAPRI MUNICIPAL FIRE SERVICE
TAXING DISTRICT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
Page 242
Item #16F2
March 26, 2002
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CERTIFICATIONS OF INABILITY TO
COMPLY WITH RULE 29 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
(C.F.R.) SECTION 1910.134 (G) (4) FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT AND THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT
Item #16Gl -Continued to April 9, 2002 BCC Meeting
BUDGET AMENDMENT #02-250 (GENERAL FUND 001
ADMINISTRATION)
Item #16H 1
, IT
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE WHEREBY
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PURSUANT TO
SUBSECTION 332.08 (2) (A), FLORIDA STATUTES, WILL
ADOPT THE "COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR GENERAL AVIATION
AIRPORTS" AND WILL SPECIFY THE PENALTIES THAT CAN
BE APPLIED AGAINST THE VIOLATOR; ALSO TO SPECIFY
VARIOUS ENFORCEMENT ALTERNATIVES THAT MAY BE
USED TO ENFORCE THOSE PENALTIES IN THE SAME
MANNER IN WHICH PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY OTHER
COLLIER COUNTY RULES, REGULATIONS, AND
ORDINANCES CAN BE ENFORCED; ALSO THAT THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY SHALL ADVERTISE THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE IN THE NAPLES DAILY NEWS AND BRING THAT
ORDINANCE TO THE BOARD AT A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THIS REQUESTED ORDINANCE
Page 243
Item # 16J 1
March 26, 2002
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 244
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
mo
Bo
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 for February 23, 2002 through March 1, 2002.
Minutes:
Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board - Summary Agenda for
November 8, 2001.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 22,
2002; Minutes of February 1, 2002.
o
1-75/Golden Gate Interchange Advisory Committee - Minutes for
January 30, 2002.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for February 20, 2002;
Minutes of January 16, 2002.
o
Black Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for January 22, 2001, February
26, 2001, March 19, 2001, April 16, 2001, May 21, 2001, June 18, 2001,
July 16, 2001; Agenda for September 17, 2001, October 15, 2001,
December 17, 2001, Minutes of May 21, 2001, Minutes of July 16, 2001,
Minutes of November 7, 2001, Minutes of December 17, 2001
o
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for February 21, 2002;
Minutes of January 3, 2002.
°
Development Services Advisory Committee - Minutes for January 16,
2002.
Development Services Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee - Agenda for
January 9, 2002.
Rural Lands Oversight Committee - Agenda for March 11, 2002; Minutes
for February 25, 2002.
H:Data/Format
March 26, 2002
Item # 16K 1
REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR BUILDING
RENOVATIONS FOR FY 2002 FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Item #16K2
THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 - COPY OF
REPORT IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE COUNTY
MANAGER'S OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER
BUILDING, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
Item #16K3
THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SERVE AS
THE LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM BY
EXECUTING THE CERTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATION FOR
FOURTEENTH YEAR FUNDING
Item # 16L 1 -Continued to April 9, 2002 BCC Meeting
SETTLEMENT IN BETTENCOURT V. COLLIER COUNTY,
CASE NO. 00-0283-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COUNTY WOULD
PAY $150,000 AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE COUNTY
WOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, SAID $150,000
SETTLEMENT WAS ARRIVED AT DURING A MEDIATION OF
THE MATTER
Page 245
March 26, 2002
Item #16L2
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AS TO PARCELS
246 AND 246T IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY l~. JOSE ALVARADO, ETAL, (GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 63041), IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4,512.44
Item #16L3
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES TO PARCELS
244 AND 244T IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JOSE ALVARADO, ETAL, (GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 63041), IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,045.33
Item # 16L4
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 357 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY Iz. SHANE ROBERTSON, ET AL,
(GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 63041) - STAFF
TO DEPOSIT $200.00 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item # 16L5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 172 AND 772 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY Iz. DOMINIQUE C. RIHS,
AS TRUSTEE OF THE LAND TRUST NUMBER 5146-1, ET AL,
CASE NO. 01-0819-CA. PROJECT NO. 60071 - STAFF TO
DEPOSIT $9,175.15 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Page 246
Item #16L6
March 26, 2002
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 170 AND 770 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FRED R.
SUTHERLAND, ETAL, CASE NO. 01-0756-CA. PROJECT NO.
60071 - STAFF TO DEPOSIT $9,143.14 INTO THE REGISTRY
OF THE COURT
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2002-13 REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 01-49, WHICH CREATED THE
COMMUNITY OF CHARACTER COUNCIL
The vote on this item was 4/1 with Commissioner Carter opposed
Item # 17B
ORDINANCE 2002-14 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-76 WHICH CREATED THE
LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE II BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT
Item # 17C
RESOLUTION 2002-157, RE PETITION VA-2001-AR-1584,
STAN WHITTEMORE, REPRESENTING T. MICHAEL AND
BARBARA J. BROTT, REQUESTING A 5-FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 30-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO
25 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 384 FOX DEN CIRCLE
Page 247
March 26, 2002
Item #17D- Moved from Item #8A
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE OF B.J.
BOYER-SAVARD, ET AL, VS. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL,
CASE NO. 01-1082-CA, PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO THE EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
~ CHAIRMAN
.?'ATTi~ST.
'- DW;,: -T:E. BROCK, CLERK
Attest as to Chatnnafl's
$tg~ttm-e
Page 248
March 26, 2002
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented ,~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 249