Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/30/2002 W (w/CRA & CRA Advisory Boards)September 30, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Naples, Florida, September 30, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Community Redevelopment Agency of Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., at the County Commission Meeting Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present. CHAIRPERSON: ABSENT: DONNA FIALA JIM COLETTA FRED COYLE TOM HENNING JAMES CARTER ALSO PRESENT: David Weigel, County Attorney; and Tom Tomerlin, Principal Planner; and Aaron Blair, Planner. Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA September 30, 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. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES' FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA BRIEF ADDRESS (5 MINUTES EACH) FROM EACH ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN - BILL NEAL, BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND FRED N. THOMAS, JR., IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. 4. STAFF UPDATES AND REPORT 5. GENERAL ITEMS FOR'CONSIDERATION A. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) support the travel of one advisory board member from each of the September 30, 2002 Redevelopment Areas to the Florida Redevelopment Association Annual Conference in October 2002. BAYSHORF. JGATEWAY TRIANGLE COMPONENT REDEVELOPMENT AREA ITEMS Am Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) authorize the development and implementation of a comprehensive overlay plan that addresses specific development standards and provides a vision for the redevelopment of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency authorize Staff to initiate Phase II of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Zoning Overlay which is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency approve the expansion of the Waterfront Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Zoning Overlay to include four additional lots located on Bayview Drive which is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve and authorize CRA Chairperson to sign an agreement with Collier County for a drainage and sidewalk improvement project on Linwood Avenue using $329,046 of Collier County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. 7. IMMOKALEE COMPONENT REDEVELOPMENT AREA ITEMS Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) authorize staff to evaluate the impact of current Land Development Regulations on the Immokalee Community. Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment *Agency (CRA) approve and authorize CRA Chairperson to sign an agreement with Collier County for the installation and/or upgrade of approximately 45 streetlights in Immokalee using $60,000 of Collier County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. 8. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE CRA'S AGENDA SHOULD BF MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 September 30, 2002 September 30, 2002 CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Board meeting is called to order. Thank you all. (Pledge of Allegiance.) CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thank you. Good morning. We have a brief address from each advisory board chairman, and Bill Neal will be our first presenter. MR. NEAL: I know that Tom wants to quit meetings, so I'm going to -- The CRA is a new experience for us in the county, and there are a lot of frustrations going on in trying to get it working. We have a manual about that thick of rules and regulations that we have to learn before we can ever get anything done. However, staff is new at it and we're new at it, and that's the only real little complaint I can make. If we had some experienced people to help us to get this CRA going, we would be far, far ahead of it. So I encourage you to look at it on that basis. We're going to ask you for some things this morning that will help expedite getting this thing going. So I just appreciate your cooperation. It's a pleasure working with you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for being here. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thanks, Bill. Fred Thomas from the Immokalee CRA Advisory Board. Good morning, Fred. MR. THOMAS: Good morning, Commissioners, and, today, redevelopment board members. When I started my career 37 years ago, I was in redevelopment. I started in redevelopment. And in spite of the dwindling federal dollars to this effort, I want to applaud you for getting heavily involved in picking Immokalee as one of the areas that you're going to help redevelop. We in Immokalee have been working to diversify our economic base. The recent farm bill is going to help that, but we still need to Page 2 September 30, 2002 begin to diversify it, encourage more of our professionals to join people like Ray Holland and myself to live in Immokalee, and I'll say a little bit more about that later, and to broaden our economic base in order to make Immokalee a very viable community. A lot of the things that we have been working with, and we're working through several agencies, you'll hear several different people from several different groups but we all work together. The federal empowerment zone, the state enterprise zone and the community redevelopment agency, we're all working together as one big unit with various subcommittees, if you will, to deal with the various aspects of what's going on in our community. There are a couple of issues. I'm going to have to leave because I have a meeting in Ruskin at one with Ray Hass, but Ray Holland, who is the chairman of the State Enterprise Zone Development Agency and vice chairman of the Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee -- so like I say, we're all coming into the same way, to help us empower Immokalee. We thank you for all your help. Now, some people have asked me, you know, you live in Immokalee and came from a luxury condo in Tampa down to Immokalee. And my friends who know I still love going to the city and moving around the cities say, "How do you do that?" I said, well, we're in this United States of America, and you have 1.6 acres with a nice home, that you can take a remote control car up and down the street in front of your house and still walk to the Winn Dixie and the Eckerd's drug store, take a ten-minute bike ride to Lake Trafford with all of the wildlife that you could ever want to have, twenty-five minutes from an international airport, forty-five minutes from a symphony hall, museum and a concert hall, forty-five minutes from the Gulf of Mexico, Florida Bay and the Isle and fifteen minutes Page 3 September 30, 2002 from the Atlantic Ocean, less than a two-and-a-half-hour drive from the Miami Dolphins, Orlando Magic and Tampa Bay Buc's. And it never gets colder than thirty-two degrees and a sustained period of warmer than 94. Where else can you be but here in heaven? Help us make it a bigger heaven for everybody else. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thank you, Fred. And now, Tom, do you have any additions or corrections to the agenda this morning? MR. TOMERLIN: No, that's all for the agenda. It's a rather brief agenda. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I move that we approve the agenda. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Any comments from the commissioners? All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Like sign. Thank you. And now staff updates and report, and that's you. MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. For the record, my name is Tom Tomerlin. I'm a principal planner with the comprehensive planning section. Really, today's meeting is a separate meeting, and it's kind of borne out of previous directions that we took when we met last time as a separate body. That was April 30th of this year. And there was a motion to try to have these things carried as a separate meeting rather than trying to piggyback it onto the board meeting. So today it's a rather brief agenda. I think we can go through it quickly, but it is, as Chairman Bill Neal stated, we're trying to get our learning feet in this area of process and we do think there is some value to meeting as a separate group. Page 4 September 30, 2002 One of the first things I'd like to mention in staff updates and reports is the Mini Triangle Project. The Mini Triangle Project, as you know, the last time we met, you authorized advertisement for a request for proposals to redevelop the mini triangle piece, which is approximately a 14-acre piece. We received proposals back, basically, one proposal back. And the advisory board and staff has yet to analyze it. And we will be coming forward to this board at a later date with a recommendation on how to proceed with that project. The second point that I might make is that there has been recent discussion of having, whenever there's an advisory board vacancy come open, to have the actual advisory board make a recommendation to this board before you elect to have a replacement. And the bylaws will be amended to reflect that, and that will be coming to this board at a later date as well. We have a couple of more items that Aaron Blair, also on staff, was going to give an update on. MR. BLAIR: For the record, Aaron Blair, Planning Services Department. The other one is the art festival that Richard Sullivan, who does the national art festival in Cambier Park-- I believe that's where it's at -- that's moving forward for this season. He's planning to have it, and he said it was going to pick up pace in the next couple of months. So hopefully by the next meeting we'll have more concrete information from him on what's going on. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Do you have a date for that yet? MR. BLAIR: No, he hasn't settled on a date. It'll probably be in March or somewhere around that. You know, wherever there's a vacancy in different events in the county, you don't want to duplicate. And the other one would be our grants that are in the Bayshore area that were approved at the last meeting; the site improvement Page 5 September 30, 2002 grant and the impact fee assistant grant. Everything is ready for those to go forward. We're just waiting for our urban design planner to be hired, which has been advertised, to implement those grant programs for us. So right now they're just in limbo until that happens. We've got them all together. So we're just waiting for that. And that advertisement is about up, I believe. So hopefully someone will be in place to do those. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments? Okay. Thank you for your reports. And now we have Item A. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: A second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are two options to Option A, if I remember correctly which -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: 5(A)? CHAIRPERSON FIALA: No, I don't think so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 5 (A)? Sorry. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that correct? CHAIRPERSON FIALA: It's down there. There is something else with two options. You're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I got it. Okay. I got it. Second on 5(A). CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. Any comments? All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Like sign. Thank you very much. And now we'll move on to 6(A). Tom? MR. TOMERLIN: Yes, 6(A) is the product of the advisory board and staff and the general public kind of scratching our heads with how to proceed with -- in a comprehensive manner, how to Page 6 September 30, 2002 proceed with redevelopment in the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment area. And what we've -- what the advisory board is recommending and what staff is also supporting is that we -- we have a redevelopment plan in which to work from, but basically what we're proposing is that we take this redevelopment plan one step further and we actually try to implement and codify some of the standards that are suggested in the redevelopment plan, that they might be applied through code throughout the redevelopment area. The need and desire to do this is basically borne out of-- The community is identifying that there's a lot of uses that are going in, into the Bayshore/Gateway area, and the market might place uses and the way they look in a less desirable way than what might go if we had stricter development standards. So basically what this is trying to do is to try to lend teeth to having a set of development standards that the community would agree to. And, basically, this would require the expenditure of tax increment funds to hire a planning consultant to do this. The existing redevelopment plan that is adopted does spell out that zoning overlays are an available tool in which to try to institute redevelopment. And this is, basically, extending that idea a little bit further by saying we're going to try to tackle the entire redevelopment area, some 1,940 acres, trying to plan for that entire redevelopment area through some sort of codified development standard that may be implemented through the land development code. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. Any comments or questions? Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we still looking at uses such as hotel, motel, retail uses, offices and things of that nature? Page 7 September 30, 2002 MR. TOMERLIN: There was discussion of those type of uses, especially within the mini triangle parcel at the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. TOMERLIN: -- apex of the triangle. And that is a-- that's a catalyst project that we -- we did get one proposal back, and we -- the advisory board has not had an opportunity to review that or make a recommendation to this board, but those type of uses were spelled out for the apex of the mini triangle. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you explain to me the relationship between this particular proposal and the request for proposals that you solicited? MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. Basically, the redevelopment plan that is adopted does rely quite heavily on what is referred to as catalyst projects. And the way catalyst projects proceed is that there is some sort of developer agreement. Basically, the CRA board partners with the developer in some manner and a proposal goes forward to develop a parcel in some sort of unified nature; whereas, this is basically a change in the land development -- underlying land development regulations that would apply to any new development that the market may desire to go in there. I think kind of an idea with this approach is that if these type of development standards are in place, there is some assurance to the development community that what kind of development will be sought in this area is of a high quality nature, and it would provide -- it would incentivise that type of high quality development due to the fact that the regulations call for it. So it is a completely different type of way to approach the redevelopment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess what I'm getting at is you already have a response to your RFP; one response. Now, how that Page 8 September 30, 2002 does response deal or relate to your request that we make a decision about developing standards for development? If we develop standards, how can that response be valid since it obviously wouldn't be based upon the standards that we will be developing in the future? MR. TOMERLIN: That's correct. I think, basically, we've been approaching these things in a vacuum. We haven't blended the two together yet. And I think that's certainly a line of thinking that we need to think about as we proceed down the road is that, basically, the way we're keeping this is we're keeping the catalyst project as a separate entity. So basically when we talk about a comprehensive development plan, I think what we're kind of envisioning is that the mini triangle represents a big uncertainty, and whether or not that would be included into this comprehensive overlay plan is a question yet to be decided. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you would hold a decision on the response to the RFP to that proposal. You would rec- -- MR. TOMERLIN: Not necessarily. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You would recommend we hold that up until you develop the standards? MR. TOMERLIN: I think the understanding with the mini triangle catalyst project is that it would have to seek a PUD and an entirely different set of zoning standards all by itself. So I think the project has always been approached in a way that it has its own driving force and that it would dictate what kind of zoning would need to be in place for it to go forward. Now, an obvious question is, as we flush out this proposal that we receive for the mini triangle, is looking at how this comprehensive plan would fit into that puzzle piece and how we could develop it, too, or it -- it certainly begs the question down the road: Is this an Page 9 September 30, 2002 available avenue that can be done in conjunction with a catalyst project and so forth? So there's various options to consider there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. I guess my concern is it would be a lot easier for me to evaluate the appropriateness of some future PUD if, in fact, we had the development standards already developed. It seems to me that we might have the cart before the horse in this particular situation. But the other question I need to ask you is: Can you go ahead with the catalyst process -- the catalyst project without condemnation proceedings? MR. TOMERLIN: I think that's really a crystal ball that we don't have a good read on. But I think if you were to ask staff's professional opinion, I think the use -- that the CRA's ability to assemble these properties is probably inevitable with this mini triangle project, and it's probably dependent on the CRA board using those type of powers for it to go forward. Now, this comprehensive overlay is a different beast. There's nothing in here about -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand that. I just -- I guess my position would be, I'd like to see the comprehensive overlay done before we make some decision on a catalyst project. But I know that people who have been on this board longer than I have want to move very, very quickly but -- CHAIRPERSON FIALA: And let me just jump in here, and I'm sorry to even interrupt you there, because you make very good points and, you know, I go to those meetings. And we were approached, just recently, Bill Neal and I -- and Bill is the chairman of that group -- by someone who said, you know, what is your plan for this entire region. And we thought we had one. We've been meeting for two years thinking we had one, and all we really had was a footprint. We did not have a comprehensive plan as they did it on Fifth Avenue, Page 10 September 30, 2002 where people knew what the height restrictions were, what the colors were, what was allowed and what wasn't allowed. And it hit us all between the eyes as we sat there, and just like that we decided we needed to have that in place. But, of course, his RFP was like, what, a month ago or so or two months ago, and we only -- we only realized that we didn't have a complete plan about a week ago. So that's about -- You're absolutely right. It would be nice to have it in place, and we never realized we didn't have it in place. Now we're going to correct that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I support the plan. I don't have a problem with that. But I do recall very specifically during our last meeting when I asked that a set of zoning standards be developed prior to putting out the RFP, that was my specific request. And that's where I thought we were going with this thing. I did not expect that the RFP would be put out before we had the zoning standards but, nevertheless, that has happened. And what I am concerned about is for those people who want to move it rapidly to get this done, the one sure way to stop it and slow it down is to consider any condemnation proceedings, because that's going to tie us up in court for a long time. That is not an easy process. You're going to get lots of legal challenges to that. And it still seems to me, and it's the same thing I said during our last meeting, that it seems to me that if we had a comprehensive set of development standards, then the current property owners would have an option of doing something themselves to meet those zoning standards or you could still consider condemnation if we felt that was the appropriate thing to do. But to proceed with an RFP and a proposal that was issued without the zoning standards and then begin to develop the zoning standards, I think, is really the improper Page 11 September 30, 2002 approach. But now that -- You understand my position, so I'll shut up. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you all, and I think we're all basically saying the same thing. I have one question. Option number one, which we seem to be -- the staff seems to be in agreement with the advisory board on, the part that I'm not too sure of was the required -- the advisory board's recommendation that we require a professional consultant be hired to prepare a comprehensive zoning overlay. Could you comment on that, please? How is staff's feeling on that? MR. TOMERLIN: Staff is basically overworked. I think we are making significant strides with other community planning efforts, certainly not under the purview of this board; but the East Naples U.S. 41 corridor, it looks like that could certainly be something that's largely staff-implemented and carried through with. The ability to undertake something of this nature, we think, really does require the services of a planning consultant. And the fact is that a lot of design, a lot of resources that simply aren't in-house, that the county will be required to come up with the type of design standards, type of setback standards, the type of height standards; the whole myriad of land development code criteria that we suspect this overlay would encompass. So we -- I think we lack the in-house expertise to tackle a great deal of this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And with that said, I'd like to make a motion that we approve this option number one with the addition of hiring of a professional consultant. If we let this linger in the committee any longer, it's just going to go forever. It'll be the Page 12 September 30, 2002 next generation to the generation removed again that will be dealing with this. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: I second it. Any further comments? Oh, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just a question with respect to the consultant that you hire. I know exactly what you're talking about with respect to delays as former chairman of the 41 cannery development committee. That's been going on since the late '80s, and I don't think there's been a resolution yet. Even though the zoning standards that my committee was able to develop were unanimously approved, they still have not been implemented. So I understand the need to proceed. But what I would suggest, if we're limiting our vote only to this option of developing an overlay plan, I strongly support it. But I would suggest that in the search for a consultant, that we find someone who has had experience in our community who understands the kinds of architectural standards we want and that are compatible, and you may or may not find some of the consultants the city has hired to be potential bidders for this contract. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thank you. Any further comments or questions? We don't have a speaker or anything, do we? I should have asked you that before. I'm sorry. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? Like sign. Passed, 4/0. Thank you. 6(B) is our next agenda item. MR. TOMERLIN: This one is in regards to initiating Phase II to the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Zoning Overlay. This may not be Page 13 September 30, 2002 needed if we're going to do this master plan. So it was on the agenda in case that wasn't supported. So we may not have to do the Phase II if you don't want to because I'm guessing that with this new master plan overlay, that it would be taken care of. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Was it just like, then, a redundant thing once the other one was adopted? MR. TOMERLIN: Well, it was in case you didn't want to adopt. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Oh, I see. MR. TOMERLIN: Doing a master type for the whole area, we still needed to proceed with this. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. Do we have any questions by commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have one. I don't know if the CRA is concerned about that. Is that going to slow you down with respect to anything that you had planned to do? MR. NEAL: Are you addressing that to me? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. NEAL: The only thing I'm concerned about -- CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Bill, would you come up to the speaker, please? MR. NEAL: I'm sorry. The only thing I'm concerned about is we do have a partial overlay on Bayshore already. And all we were really asking for was an extension of that particular overlay. That's almost like just saying can we repeat what we already have. Now what staff has just suggested, which does concern me a little bit, is let's just wait until we get this overall picture. I don't think we need the overall picture for the balance of Bayshore, Tom, unless I misunderstood what you're saying. I don't know what the process is to get that Phase II of the Bayshore implemented into Phase I. If that's just a vote for this committee, Page 14 September 30, 2002 then that's fine, we could do it. On the other hand, I'd hate to delay the Bayshore development as a result of waiting for a comprehensive study to be done. Is that what you're asking me? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, exactly. MR. TOMERLIN: The staff position was rather simple with this, is that given the agenda topic right before this, there was recognition that we're going to do this thing. Instead of a piecemeal fashion, which the Phase II of the Bayshore would certainly represent, we were going to try to tackle this all at once. Now, having said that, obviously, you can't tackle everything at once. You're going to have to divide it into sectors and start someplace first. And I think, obviously, since we already have a zoning overlay that has some very nice standards on Bayshore Drive, this is an obvious place to start in terms of sectoring out or phasing. This entire plan is to go into Phase II first, because we have something to start with right to the north of it. So that was staffs simple thinking, is that we're going to do the whole thing. We've decided that. And an obvious place to start would be Phase II because it's -- we already have a zoning overlay that it would be directly adjacent to, and we would have a planning consultant on board to do that. So that was simply staffs thinking with regard to that. MR. NEAL: I'm not sure that answers the question. Can we go ahead with the Phase II overlay based on the Phase I that we had, just an extension? MR. TOMERLIN: Well, I think everything with -- when we tackle this comprehensive overlay, I think everything kind of goes up into the air with how development standards should go forward. So I guess what we're looking at is actually having staff implement the Phase II rather than wait for the consultant? Page 15 September 30, 2002 MR. NEAL: I would think that our committee would recommend that because we already have the overlay for Phase I on Bayshore. It's been accepted. It's working. And all we need to do is extend it a few more blocks into the program. I would think that would be the desire of the committee. MR. BLAIR: It would -- it's a task that staff-- It wouldn't be hard for staff to do this. However, we'd still have to have community meetings like we did with Phase I, because we can't just plop down and say here's your new zoning overlay and not tell anybody about it, just extending it. However, you know, all the standards are in place already. So it would be more of drawing the lines of our site boundary and communicating with the public that-- to see if this is what they want for their area. So it wouldn't be, you know, a very hard task. It would just be a little bit time consuming. We'd have to go through the process in getting it approved, but it's something that I'm sure staff could handle. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: And all we're doing is expanding the lines. Is that-- MR. BLAIR: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: -- correct? MR. BLAIR: We just weren't sure that, you know, as we do this master overlay, is the consultant going to come and say, you know, this Bayshore overlay is no good, let's throw it out and do something new. But I'm not sure that they're going to say that, because it is pretty comprehensive, which this other overlay is going to be also. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I like that idea. I believe the people on Bayshore already know what they want, don't they? You've got a pretty good idea there on the northern part of that area. Page 16 September 30, 2002 MR. NEAL: Yeah. Excuse me, again. We shouldn't be debating this. The confusion is that we thought that staff had -- prior to this Phase I had said that Phase II would be extended to a certain time, that we wouldn't have to go through the process of meetings because the community has already adopted the Phase I program, and they were under the assumption that it included most all of Bayshore. Only later did we find out that there was some that -- it was stopped at a certain point. And I'm not criticizing staff, they just did not extend it far enough. So the people on Bayshore want the Phase I extended to Phase II all the way down the line. Now, I'm not trying to confuse the issue here. I just don't see the necessity of having another series of meetings with the community when they've already -- they already thought they had developed a plan. Is that a little clearer? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think so. I'm concerned about the legal aspects. MR. NEAL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we have a legal requirement to advertise and have the public hearings for this particular phase, I think we need to do that and do it quickly, but I don't have the answer to that question. Is that the situation? MR. TOMERLIN: I think I might defer to the county attorney on that, whether an actual land development code overlay plan into the land development code would require notification consistent with, let's say, a rezone or something like that. MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, County Attorney. I would agree if other thoughts are that way. I think that it should be and that it would require the formality of a notification. MR. TOMERLIN: I think, certainly, staff feels comfortable putting it on the record that we could begin initiating Phase II of Page 17 September 30, 2002 Bayshore Drive. And then, hopefully, once a consultant finally gets on board, this will be a somewhat long process because we have to go to RFP with it and so forth, that eventually we could be able to develop some synergy here and hand-off with the overall project and proceed in that manner. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I understand. What you're saying is we're going to have to wait until the consultant gets on board before we extend the Phase II of Bayshore -- MR. TOMERLIN: No, I think we can begin work in-house -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. TOMERLIN: -- with initiating Phase II. Hopefully, when a consultant comes on board, maybe we could -- there will be some abilities to say, look, this is a starting point for the comprehensive plan, and then somewhere in the process we can eventually, hopefully, start handing it off to them. But I think in-house staff could begin initiating Phase II without waiting for a consultant. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we could say to the public, this is Phase II and it consists of essentially the same standards that we had for Phase I, so they'll understand what we're talking about, and it is subject to some revisions based upon the comprehensive study that would be developed over a period of time. So that would permit us to proceed very quickly with public hearings on Phase I or Phase II and at the same time retain some flexibility with respect to applying any new standards that we developed under the comprehensive overlay. Does that sound like an appropriate way -- MR. NEAL: It sounds very -- boundaries. MR. TOMERLIN: It sounds very good, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Page 18 September 30, 2002 CHAIRPERSON FIALA: And I would think you'd want to know what your boundaries are before the planner comes in that we hire so he would know what size the district is that he's going to be designing. Okay. Do I hear a motion from board members? Any other further comments? COMMISSIONER COYLE: extension of the Phase II. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: COMMISSIONER HENNING: MS. FILSON: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: previous item. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got it straight. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: slip, I move that we approve the I'll second that. Wasn't that on a previous item? No, that was option two on the Phase II, option two. Yep, there you go. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Any further comments? All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Like sign. MS. FILSON: Commissioner Fiala? CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Yes. MS. FILSON: I have one speaker. I'm sorry, on this item. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. I'm sorry that it's so late. MS. FILSON: Sharon King. MS. KING: I was late too. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. MS. FILSON: Is your last name King? MS. KING: King. Okay. They just handed me the Page 19 September 30, 2002 MS. FILSON: King? Thank you. MS. KING: My name is Sharon King. I'm a member of the advisory board and also a member of the public. The discussion that you just had with Bill regarding the second phase of Bayshore, as a member of the public who attended these meetings prior to becoming involved with the advisory board, I am confused with the requirement for having additional meetings. When these meetings were held by Landers & Adkins, all of Bayshore was invited. All people from all of that area attended these meetings, and they all made the determination of what they wanted; that was my understanding. When the plan was implemented, I don't know whether it was staff because they wanted to start in a smaller area or whether it was more convenient to start with a smaller area, but from the very beginning, I and the public, that I'm aware of, we have all thought that it included all -- the entire Bayshore area. Phase I and Phase II should have been included in those meetings that were voted on and attended by the public. So at this point, I just wanted to register some concern regarding the need for further public meetings. The people are already saying, you know, "What happened to all this? We voted on a plan, the plan. Now we've got to do it again." You know, they're going to feel a little bit of frustration when it's something that they felt they've already accomplished. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thank you. MR. BLAIR: I can answer that. The Landers Adkins' meetings were -- are different meetings than with this Bayshore overlay. And, you know, if staff could, we would just implement it without having the meetings. It's a lot easier for us, too, but we just do it because of a legal issue. Page 20 September 30, 2002 And for the Phase I, the people that were invited for Phase I would be this general area here (Indicating). That's where the notices went out. Phase II, we're talking about this here (Indicating). These people weren't invited to this meeting here, because it didn't directly affect them besides their drive-through. So that's what we're talking about basically. We're going to have to invite these people here to initiate that. But, I mean, if it's something we didn't have to do, you know, we're more than welcome not to do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next item. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thank you. The next item is 6(C). MR. BLAIR: And this one is an amendment to the Bayshore overlay, the Phase I. The advisory board had a petition from someone in the public to have this included in the waterfront subdistrict. It just would be an extension of the waterfront subdistrict, which would be right here (Indicating). Right now it's residential property, and it would allow for all commercial uses as well as marina uses. Staff doesn't support the budget board's recommendation on this, though, because this -- there's different issues with it. The street is really narrow and a dead-end street. And to have such high commercial traffic all the way down one side of the street, that's going to be a traffic problem. And also, the people that did come to the meeting when we talked about this, there wasn't great support from the general public. So we're going to leave it up to you to make the decision. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Tom? MR. TOMERLIN: I think, basically, the staff recommendation on this would be, um -- The previous agenda item, I think we could Page 21 September 30, 2002 certainly start making significant headway on Phase II without having the consultant on board. Let's get the wheels turning with respect to both. With this item, I think staff would support that this really be reassessed as part of this comprehensive plan, because we do have some concerns about opening the gates to allow some of this commercial traffic down that residential street. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: A couple of questions. Number one: Has this particular item been advertised and have the adjacent property owners been notified that we were going to be discussing that today? Because I did receive a couple of calls from people who were concerned about this, and I had told them they would be notified if this was brought before the CRA. And I hope I didn't lie to them. MR. TOMERLIN: Well, before there's any kind of rezone, it -- of course, this is talking about an amendment to the land development code. So the decision-making body would actually be the Board of County Commissioners eventually, and it would certainly be publicly noticed at that point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. TOMERLIN: Having said that, there was some public notice done for an advisory board meeting to discuss the issue, and at that time there were a handful of property owners that showed up to that and, for the most part, voiced their discontent with it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: May I ask a question here? When the advisory board voted on that, wasn't that before they came up with the new idea to hire a planner and so maybe that -- MR. TOMERLIN: That's correct. Page 22 September 30, 2002 CHAIRPERSON FIALA: -- one was -- I think the cart was put before the horse in that particular case? MR. TOMERLIN: That's correct; yes. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. MR. TOMERLIN: And we would certainly encourage that the whole issue of Bayview Drive be reassessed as part of this comprehensive overlay plan. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Uh-huh. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This particular area was identified on the original map to measure the overlay as C4. Can you explain to me the reason why it wasn't originally implemented that way? The original map that was published to the public identified the subject area here as C4. MR. TOMERLIN: Yeah. I don't know about the C4 zoning. That was a little bit before my time. Maybe Aaron might know. MR. BLAIR: I'm not sure exactly. The C4 zoning that -- the current C4 zoning stops here (Indicating). COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that was what was adopted, but what was on the original map? MR. BLAIR: Well, the original zoning map was C4 to this point, the original zoning map from whenever it was adopted. This is where the C4 stopped. It's kind of unique because it stopped at C4 and went straight to residential with no -- right in the middle of a residential street. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the map I have and I didn't bring with me today shows the subject area as also C4, and that was the one that was mailed out to the public. Now, I don't know if that was the -- of course, it wasn't the legal map or we wouldn't be here. MR. BLAIR: So it was awhile -- was it an older map? Page 23 September 30, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. BLAIR: Because I'm wondering from-- When we started this first Bayshore overlay, we had different boundaries, you know, the very first meeting, we had a boundary and it showed a wider area of commercial. And, of course, after different outcry here and there, we would sink it back and sink it back and sink it back. So maybe it's a map that did show in the beginning this all being C4 for a waterfront, you know, entertainment district. But at the time, there was different property owners who began to say, "Look. No, I don't want that." CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Uh-hm. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. My comfort level on this is not there. I would like to go with making a motion that we follow staff's recommendation not to recommend this proposed amendment. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: And I second that. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a possibility of recommending or modifying the motion to permit the staff and/or consultant to evaluate certain uses in this area with a view toward, perhaps, changing it, perhaps not with the same intensity as C4 commercial but-- MR. TOMERLIN: Yes, certainly, I think that's doable, and I think that was -- Staff certainly intended to indicate that this is a special area to whoever the consultant was eventually hired, that this area was an area of question for extending that waterfront subdistrict a little bit. So I think, certainly, that can be done. And I think staff always had it in the back of their mind that this was one of the things Page 24 September 30, 2002 that. a -- we would certainly share with a consultant, that this is an area of special concern and we need to look at how to meet the needs of the community and the property owners in that area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem amending the motion for that. I would assume that, you know, regardless of what we did, that, you know, our talks would be ongoing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: I second that. All in favor? Opposed? We don't have anybody to oppose it. Thank you. 3/0 carries. Motion to deny, rather. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With instruction to staff to study the area; right? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Number 6(D). MR. TOMERLIN: Yes, 6(D) is an item that this group has seen before. It's basically asking you to sign off on a subrecipient agreement that is required pursuant to the Community Development Block Grant Program. This is for a Linwood drainage project. The CDBG funds for this is in the amount of $329,046. The proposed project, part of the redevelopment plan talks about drainage and stormwater as one of the efforts to try to help implement redevelopment. And this certainly goes a long way with respect to So, basically, we're just asking for the chairperson to sign off on COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Like sign. That's it, 3/0. Very good. And now we have 7(A). Page 25 September 30, 2002 MR. TOMERLIN: Okay. 7(A) is a shift to the other side of the county, to Immokalee. And I guess there's probably no better way to introduce this except that it's somewhat of the converse of what we've talked about with the Bayshore, wanting more stringent development standards in overlay. Basically, the Immokalee community has expressed their concerns with Land Development Code and how this might produce a hindrance or a constraint on development in some cases. Basically, what is being proposed before you today is that staff go back and analyze this a little bit more through roundtable workshops with the public, identifying certain cohorts such as police, teachers, the development community, and just try to get a better handle on the benefits and costs of what the development standards do for the community of Immokalee. And I think, basically, they are identifying that they're a unique area, and they wonder if all these -- all the land development standards that apply in Naples are necessarily a good fit in Immokalee. So, basically, it's a request to study the issue and try to get a firmer grasp for what the community feels. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I would just like to point out, this executive summary, I don't know who wrote it but they hit the nail right on the head. I'd like to see this coming right out in print the way it is. Immokalee is a community with a vastly different economic and social mix than Naples. How true. And development standards are not representative of the unique character of Immokalee to oppose a coastal look to a rural community. The central issue in Immokalee is whether certain development standards actually become so costly, Page 26 September 30, 2002 that they exceed benefits and halt development from going forward, and this needs to be evaluated. So with that, I would like to make a motion to approve this to be sent back for further evaluation and study by the Collier County Land Development or by the Immokalee CRA Advisory Board. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thank you. And I'll second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: I'll second that. And, Commissioner Coyle, you have something to say, and we have two speakers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was going to echo Commissioner Coletta's remarks. The thing we have to remember, that in our haste to try to control growth in certain portions of the county, there are certain other portions of the county where growth is absolutely essential. And I think -- I would very strongly support this proposal. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Well said. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before we take a vote on that, I'd like to get the chance for a little commercial. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. And then we have two speakers after your commercial. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We do. And I'm sure they're going to echo what I'm going to say. Immokalee is diversely different, and that's why we're coming back to you about the impact fees and a number of other things. As far as the regulations and general code regulations, they need to be reevaluated on a case-by- case basis, because Immokalee is so vastly different and they're a special consideration. It's out there competing with Hendry County, which has no impact fees, much lower land cost, Lee County, with a third less in cost in impact fees. They're trying to build an industrial Page 27 September 30, 2002 base against all sorts of odds, and they've got very little to show for it. Eventually, what I'd like to see us do is come up with a planning commission for Immokalee like we used to have. In the not-too- distant past, we had one and it was not that effective at the time. Since then, the community has grown. It's larger than the City of Naples now. They have a very active base of volunteers and city -- leaders in the community who would be able to staff that planning commission and be able to come up with their own particular outlays and zoning requirements that would benefit that community for the uniqueness that it is. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: What an excellent idea. Yes, the first speaker, please. MS. FILSON: Fred Thomas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fred, I hope I didn't take everything away from you. MS. FILSON: And he will be followed by Raymond Holland. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might mention while Fred's coming up, that he has just recently retired from his position as the director of the Farm Workers Village. It was very interesting. The last meeting I sat down with Fred, he had a key ring with about 40- some keys on it. He was separating the keys that belonged to the development and his personal keys. When he got through, he had about five keys on that ring when he was done and a handful of keys that if you ever put them in your pocket and fell in the canal, you would drown. MR. THOMAS: Fred Thomas, the chairman of the Immokalee Advisory Council. I support everything that Jim Coletta has just said -- Commissioner Coletta has said. I have acquiesced -- I say that Page 28 September 30, 2002 very strongly -- acquiesced to staff's recommendation, because we asked staff sometime ago to tell us what kind of development standards they had in Arcadia, Clewiston and other nice, quaint little towns in central Florida. They had no standards and everything works real well. Okay. No standards and everything works real well. They're a nice, quiet little community that people love to live in. Okay. But we all acquiesced and said, okay, let's study it a little bit more and figure how we can set up a set of standards that will help Immokalee grow. And that's what we want to do. We want to grow. We want to be a fine addition. We want to be empowered to carry our fair share of the weight for Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might also add, with Fred's retirement, he has a lot more time to spend straightening out the commissioners. So he'll be here quite often. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Raymond Holland? And he also has time to play with all those toys. I've never seen a guy with so many toys before. MR. HOLLAND: I'm Raymond Holland. I'm glad to see the commissioners today and the CRA Committee. I feel a little redundant in what we're going to say here, but I'd like to say it anyway. I'm the vice chairman of the CRA Subcommittee, the chairman of the EZDA Committee, president of the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce and area president of Florida Community Bank. And first off, I'd like to say that staff has been very supportive in the CRA efforts and a number of other efforts in Immokalee. And I'm very happy today to see that the county commissioners are starting to look at Immokalee possibly in a little bit different light. Page 29 September 30, 2002 As you know, Immokalee, currently, from an economic standpoint is really laying on its back. And we'd like to at least have an opportunity to get up on our knees in Immokalee. Studying the economic impact, as has been stated today, is going to be essential, not only studying zoning but the architectural standards, the permitting process itself, the landscaping requirements and, of course, impact fees and other things that go along with that. Immokalee, it really comes down to dollars and cents. People will put industry in Immokalee. People will build in Immokalee if they can do it economically. It's just a fact that you can't get the same rental rates in Immokalee that you can get in Naples. So we have to have some way to encourage people to build where the final cost can be recouped. That's really kind of the bottom-line dollar and cents of this. Their port authority and a number of other people are doing an excellent job in getting people to take a look at Immokalee. Unfortunately, when they take a look at it, oftentimes because of some of the standards that are imposed on Immokalee, it's just not economically feasible to do what they need to do. And, as was stated earlier, Hendry County, which is a very, very short distance from Immokalee, has no impact fees. The area, Felda, is going to start growing now in housing, which is desperately needed in Immokalee, but we actually need the housing to be in Immokalee where their people are paying taxes to Collier County and not paying taxes to Hendry County. So in any area that we can support housing, that's another area that we need to be supporting as hard as we can. There's a couple of other issues, and I'll just address those really fast. There's the one about street lighting. We do support the street lighting initiative to get some more street lighting in Immokalee. And Fred Thomas wrote a letter recently about some stormwater Page 30 September 30, 2002 issues where we had voted to put $10,000 to help further some study in that area and to get some ditches covered up. And we noticed that in one of the planning meetings, that part of that had been scaled back, or at least it appeared to be scaled back, and so there's a letter to that effect, and we'd like to support the original plan. And the Chamber of Commerce is selling tickets to Mickey Rooney, October 12th. They're only $20 in Immokalee. Now, when is the last time if you go to Immokalee and see Mickey Rooney? October 12th. Thankyou. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: A good plug. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that was October 12th. Did you say Mickey Rooney in Immokalee? MR. HOLLAND: The real Mickey Rooney in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any it's only $20? MR. HOLLAND: That's it. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: And where will they be appearing? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you want to leave some of the tickets with me, I'll make sure if anyone shows up at the office on the third floor of the administration building and comes to my secretary, we'll be more than happy to sell them a ticket to see Mickey Rooney on the 20th of October in Immokalee. MR. HOLLAND: The 12th. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The 12th. MR. HOLLAND: The Immokalee auditorium. MR. THOMAS: The 12th of October, my birthday. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But your birthday. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But he's going to charge $30 for tickets. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: And I already bought mine before the price went up. Page 31 September 30, 2002 CHAIRPERSON FIALA: motion and we had a second. All in favor? that. than Thank you. We've already approved that, haven't we? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think-- CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Oh, no, we haven't. No, we just -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to have a vote? -- heard our speakers. We have a Opposed? Like sign. Approved. Thank you. And now we are going onto 7(B). COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Any-- MS. FILSON: Again, Madam Chairman, I have the same two -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One's waiving. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're waiving. MS. FILSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're waiving. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unless they want to talk us out of CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. Tom, did you have anything to say? MR. TOMERLIN: No, just that it's a similar type agreement the Bayshore one but for the Immokalee street lighting project. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? Like sign. Do we have anything further to discuss this morning at this meeting? MR. TOMERLIN: That's all that staff has. Page 32 September 30, 2002 CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, anything to COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is one of the best meetings I've attended. CHAIRPERSON FIALA: Meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair- Time' 9:35 a.m. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DO IALA, CHAIRMAN These'~m~e~ere approved by the Board on presenteO- ~ or as co~ected . ,as STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) Page 33 September 30, 2002 I, Sharon A. Sullivan, R.P.R, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings; that the transcript is a tree record of the proceedings had. Dated this 10th day of October, 2002. Sharon A. Sullivan, R.P.R. Page 34