Agenda 02/14/2017 Item # 2B02/14/2017
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 2.B
Item Summary: January 10, 2017 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: 02/14/2017
Prepared by:
Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office
Name: MaryJo Brock
01/19/2017 10:07 AM
Submitted by:
Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office
Name: Leo E. Ochs
01/19/2017 10:07 AM
Approved By:
Review:
County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 01/19/2017 10:07 AM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 02/14/2017 9:00 AM
2.B
Packet Pg. 11
January 10, 2017
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 10, 2017
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the
Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special
districts as have been created according to law and having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:Donna Fiala (Outgoing)
Penny Taylor (Incoming)
Andrew Solis
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Burt L. Saunders
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance and Accounting
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
January 10, 2017
Page 2
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats. Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you so much. First of all, let
me welcome all of you here tonight -- today -- this morning. It's so
nice to see everyone. I'm glad you come down to the meetings, and it's
good to hear it firsthand and see it. When you watch television, you
can't see everyone; you can't see the audience. So this is kind of nice
that you're right here with us.
And with that, I'm going to ask you to stand. We're going to hear
a prayer, and then we're going to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Item #1A
INVOCATION GIVEN BY PASTOR JIM THOMAS OF THE EAST
NAPLES METHODIST CHURCH
PASTOR THOMAS: May we pray.
Dear Lord, we come this morning asking for the spirit's help as
we offer our prayer. Lord, we thank you for a new year. We thank
you for new opportunities. We thank you for new chances.
Lord, we always are thankful for the opportunity to speak our
mind, to say our piece, but, Lord, may we also be willing to listen, to
hear the voices of others, to hear what they have to say to come into
better understandings. And, Lord, as we come into a better
understanding of each other, may we also come closer and better in our
understanding of you.
Thank you, again, for all that you have blessed us with, Father,
and thank you for being with us in our times of trial. And we pray this
prayer humbly in your name. Amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now, Commissioner Taylor, would
you lead in the pledge.
January 10, 2017
Page 3
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And, Leo?
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE
DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR
CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDAS.) - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Madam Chair,
members of the board.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of January 10, 2017.
I have just one change to the agenda this morning,
Commissioners, and that is a request to continue Item 16A1 from your
consent agenda to the February 14, 2017, BCC meeting. That is a
recommendation to hold a public hearing to consider vacating a public
right-of-way. That item was requested for continuance by both
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Taylor, separately.
Just a couple reminders. We have court reporter breaks set for
10:30 and 2:50 in the afternoon if necessary. Item 7 on your agenda,
public comment on general topics not on the current or future agenda,
is to be heard at 1 p.m. or at the conclusion of today's agenda,
whichever occurs first; likewise, Item 9, your advertised public
hearings, are heard typically no sooner than 1 p.m. or at the conclusion
of the agenda, whichever occurs first.
With regard to Item 9, Commissioners, we have notified the
participants and the petitioners that we expect to get to those items this
morning and, obviously, by the turnout, I think they all got the
January 10, 2017
Page 4
message, so I think they're ready to go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought they were just here because they
wanted to enjoy the meeting.
MR. OCHS: Well, that could be, too, ma'am.
That's all the changes I have, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioners, would you -- we will start with Commissioner
McDaniel today. Do you have anything to add to the -- to the consent
agenda, any changes, or any ex parte?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have ex parte.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's with regard to the
entire process. On the advertised public hearings, 9A, B and C --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that will be when 9A and B come
up.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. OCHS: We're doing ex parte on the consent and summary
agenda right now, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let me make sure, then, on
summary. Just on 16A8, I did have meetings with staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forgive me. I'll get this figured
out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't mean to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- correct. Please forgive. He's an old
friend. He's a good guy, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's my second meeting.
January 10, 2017
Page 5
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, on the consent agenda, 9D, I
just had some meetings and, frankly, there were telephone meetings
and not specific conversations, but conversations with staff, and no
other changes or additions on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. I have no changes
nor corrections, no additions. And on the consent agenda, I wanted to
declare that I had a file going for 16A9, which is Oyster Harbor at
Fiddler's Creek, but I spoke with no one on that item. Thank you.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Good morning. I have received
some correspondence on 9D, and I also will be -- I will not be voting
on the appointment to the Construction Licensing Board, Matthew
Nolan.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I don't have any
changes to the agenda and no disclosures on the consent agenda or
summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, just as a point of
clarification, it was my understanding that 9D was an advertised public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It is, and I was going to mention it, and I
thought, well, maybe he didn't hear that, so... It is an advertised public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So we wait until that?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We are waiting till then before
we disclose those ex partes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's only consent and summary. And the
reason they have to do that, let me just say so that everybody
understands -- well, now that we're talking about it a little bit -- is
when those subjects come up, we actually discuss them; whereas,
January 10, 2017
Page 6
everything on the consent and summary we don't discuss; we approve
it right now, and approve, like, 90 items all at the same time, so that's
why we have to do that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Understood.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I misled. I was incorrect.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You were just fine. Don't even worry
about it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I was joyful because Clemson
beat Alabama last night.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, I was waiting for that
today, and I still don't want to talk about it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so with that, may I have a motion to
approve the agenda as written.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Let's move on. Leo?
January 10, 2017
Page 7
Item #2B
BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 13,
2016 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Item 2B is approval of the regular
meeting minutes from the Board of County Commissioners meeting of
December 13, 2016.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to make a motion for
approval. I did read them, by the way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know you do.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was impressed with your first meeting,
by the way.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I actually complimented Terri
on the amazing job that our stenographer does, because they were
amazingly accurate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I have a motion and a second. All in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #2C
THAT THE BOARD APPOINT ITS MEMBERS TO OFFICES OF
January 10, 2017
Page 8
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, THE COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD, THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COORDINATING COUNCIL, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, AND THE GULF
CONSORTIUM BOARD, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE NEW
CHAIRS FOR BOTH THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO EXECUTE ALL
DOCUMENTS APPROVED AT BOTH THIS MEETING AND
THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED BUT ARE PENDING SIGNATURE – APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Now, before we move on to choosing members for the new
Chairman and any of the other committees, I would like to ask my
commission members if you would consider or if you would grant me
the position of TDC liaison, and the reason is for eight years I've been
waiting to get on there because my background is tourism. I worked
for both United Airlines and then PBA here for 13 years, and that's a
tourism background. And I wanted to take the prerogative to ask you
to grant me that position.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So granted.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would like to have it for another
year, if that would be all right with you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And just because there's some
unfinished business. There was a letter and some issues that I have
brought forward that I will not be able to discuss unless I'm chair.
So maybe what we could do is have you chair -- maybe start the
January 10, 2017
Page 9
chair, instead of in February, or in January, maybe you could start the
chair in February. But I would like to have that next meeting. I owe it
to my -- to the board. I've been there for three years now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know, and I've never been able to get on.
Well, you've been there two years, right?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it's -- well, this might be
three years.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It would start three years today?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I would hate to give that up. Can
we do something like that?
MR. KLATZKOW: With three votes, ma'am, if you want to have
Commissioner Taylor do the first meeting and you do the rest, it's okay
by me.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor, how
long did you want to continue to stay on the TDC?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You know, I'd like just to finish
off this coming year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The whole year?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I would like the year. I
mean, we have a huge transition. We're hiring a sports person. You
know, ideally, I really would like to spend the year doing it, yes --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- and then be done, you know,
and finish. There's a lot of transition but, specifically, if that's not the
will of the commissioners, definitely at the next meeting, and then
we'll be done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Because I can pick it up pretty
easily because of my background, and I've been following the thing,
so, you know, I would really like to lend my expertise to it as well.
Isn't that funny, I never found anybody who wanted to do that before,
January 10, 2017
Page 10
so...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. I was -- it was given to
me two years ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know, and it was supposed to be given to
me. Isn't that something?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Really? Really?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then last year -- yes. Well, I didn't
ever speak to anybody about it; I just was next in line, and so I just
thought, but --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- you know, just because you're next in
line doesn't mean you get it, you know, so -- right?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I would prefer to take over, but I don't
want to disappoint you. I would go the one meeting, if that's it. But I
would like to start --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- the next month.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And maybe we can -- do we
need to do these in the form of a motion, or is this just all doing three?
MR. KLATZKOW: Right now it's freeform, but eventually we'll
need a motion, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You want to make the motion,
Burt?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I think Commissioner
Fiala and Commissioner Taylor have worked this out where
Commissioner Taylor will continue on the TDC through the end of
February, and then at the end of February, Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Through the end of January, right?
January 10, 2017
Page 11
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I believe February.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, not the end of February. I
think the meeting is at the end of January and then the end of February,
so I would be there for the next meeting, which will end -- so as of
February 1st. There we go.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So I'll make the motion
that Commissioner Taylor will continue as the commission
representative to the TDC until the end of January 2017, this coming --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- two or three weeks, and then
Commissioner Fiala will take over at that point.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a good compromise, I think; yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So any comments or
questions from other commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I never had anybody -- that's great
that you love it that much, you know.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just -- there's just some business.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to -- well...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think -- by the way, I do think
January 10, 2017
Page 12
continuity is very, very important with the chairmanship. Sometimes
to rotate it every year, depending on the issues, is not the best in the
world. So I think it really is important to sort of be there for maybe
sometimes even more than a year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Bill, did you just --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Please call me -- you're fine.
Proceed on, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now we move on to Item 2C to
appoint members of the board to -- actually, shall we appoint all of the
other committees first, Leo, before we get into the chairmanship?
MR. OCHS: It's the Board's prerogative, Madam -- it's your
prerogative, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: You have a number of them --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, there are.
MR. OCHS: -- so just let me know where you want to start.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So if anybody has any -- okay. Let's just
take -- in order that they're printed here.
The Community Redevelopment Agency, the CRA. And we have
two CRAs folks; one is in Immokalee, and one is in East Naples. And
so there are two separate communities to preside over. You don't have
to go to all the meetings, but you have to be there for them if they need
you and certainly stick up for them.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I ask a question in
reference to that? You have two of these agencies in different
locations. Would it be appropriate to ask Commissioner McDaniel to
chair the one in the Immokalee area, and I guess it would be
Commissioner Fiala to chair the one -- or to be on the one in East
Naples? Any difficulties with doing that?
January 10, 2017
Page 13
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I guess we could do either one, but it's --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's actually my district.
MR. KLATZKOW: Technically, you have one CRA.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we
had two.
MR. KLATZKOW: But having said that, you have two CRA
advisory boards. One meets in Immokalee; the other meets at the
Bayshore area.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just think it would be much
more convenient for Commissioner McDaniel and more relevant to
him to be involved.
MR. KLATZKOW: With that understanding, if one of you wants
to do the Immokalee area and one of you wants to do the Bayshore
area -- we've never done it that way, but there's no reason why we
can't.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It makes very good sense.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It makes very good sense.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If there's no objection, then I'll
make a motion that Commissioner McDaniel be our representative in
reference to the CRA board in the Immokalee area and that
Commissioner Fiala will be our representative in the East Naples area.
I'm not sure if that should be Commissioner Fiala or Commissioner
Taylor. I'd assume Commissioner Fiala, but...
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The reason you assume it is because that
was my district all along, and so I've been involved in it since 1991.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I was -- I got redistricted right out of
my district. And they only just couldn't redistrict me out of my home,
so I have this little piece in the middle, and everything else is
surrounded by -- East Naples is divided into three --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You will take the job?
January 10, 2017
Page 14
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- commission districts. Just a little -- yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the motion then.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought this was very interesting.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, and at the end of the day,
we are all county commissioners for all of the county, though we're
elected by individual districts. So we're here for everybody.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Moving on to tourist -- oh, we did
that.
Community and Economic Development Board.
That's your background, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, it is, and I would -- that's of
interest to me, obviously.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You can't nominate yourself.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can nominate him.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make the motion to
nominate Andy as our representative there.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We've got two seconds and a third
that would have seconded.
January 10, 2017
Page 15
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll third it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: To the Public Safety Coordinating
Council. Does anybody have a burning desire to do that, or shall we
just name somebody? What does the Public Community Safety
Council do?
MR. OCHS: This is a council that's required by Florida Statute,
and they primarily meet along with members of the judiciary and the
mental health agencies in town to make sure that the jails don't become
overcrowded and also to look at recidivism and other issues related to
the jail population.
So it is an important committee. I think they only meet four times
a year. We typically have one member of this board that serves as the
chair of that coordinating council.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Are you willing to do that?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, I've already had
meetings with our sheriff and our senator and our state representatives
with regard to this issue. And I know that all of us have been invited
over to the David Lawrence Center and visited that facility, but I'd be
happy to do it if Andy doesn't want it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or we could have a board representative
and a second, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure. We can split it up, too.
January 10, 2017
Page 16
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think that's very important.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We just --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How about this: If we --
MR. KLATZKOW: You just need somebody who knows to
show up, I mean, basically.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think between the two of us, we
might be able to make that happen.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but don't talk amongst yourselves.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who would be, then, the first person on
the board, and who would be the second? Let's see, both of you have --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, Commissioner McDaniel, I
mean --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Has already started.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You've already started that process
with the sheriff; that's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's up to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you'll be the second.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, good, backing him up. Okay.
Commissioner McDaniel as our appointed person and Commissioner
Solis --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Solis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Solis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, now it's Solis. Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Next week it's going to be something
else.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought you had corrected me to say
January 10, 2017
Page 17
Solis, so -- okay. Now it's Solis, right?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Any way is fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no, it isn't. I want to say it right. You
know, just like people pronounce my name -- and you ought to hear
the pronunciations. You know, I would love it if we could -- it is Solis
now --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Solis. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- will be the second, and you can both go
to the meetings, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Do alternate, right?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because they're advertised. Yes, the
alternate, right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: As long as they're advertised.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Alternate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And they can both go to the meetings
because they're --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They're advertised public
meetings, aren't they?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Aye, yi, yi. At best, for the public's
appearance sake and everything else, I would prefer just one
commissioner at the meetings.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's more than fine. We'll
coordinate with our executive coordinators as to our schedule.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. So we have
Commissioner McDaniel as our appointed liaison with a backup by
Commissioner Solis.
Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
January 10, 2017
Page 18
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That's a 5-0.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, the only one left is the
Gulf Consortium Board. I'm beginning to feel a little left out. I'll be
happy to do that one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's good. That's a really important
position.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I know it is. Actually,
that's the one I would have preferred of all those.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Really? Yeah, that has to do --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- with all of the gulf problems that we've
had and the money that's supposed to be --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, there's money with that
board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, right; lots of it. Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And a second?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We've got a motion and a second.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
January 10, 2017
Page 19
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There is one other, Madam
Chair.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, before you leave that one, we also
typically have a first alternate from the commission in the event that
Commissioner Saunders was not able to attend.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll be the alternate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, good. And usually those meetings are
in other counties, right? Aren't they?
MR. OCHS: Yeah, they move around the state, but there's
typically conference call capability, so many can attend through
conference.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good, good. Okay. So I make a motion
to nominate Penny as the --
MR. OCHS: First alternate.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: First alternate.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- alternate, yeah.
Okay, good. And I have the second. Okay. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you also have the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council appointments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I don't usually try and take -- when
January 10, 2017
Page 20
you preside you don't make the motions, but in this case Commissioner
McDaniel had already wanted to and agreed to, so would somebody
nominate him?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Please. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And a second. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But there's usually two.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Tim Nance and myself.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, no. Commissioner McDaniel -- oh,
okay. Does anybody else --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We need an alternate there?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think you had already agreed to do that,
didn't you?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So let's make that a motion, just to make
sure that it's --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And two -- and two
commissioners can attend the same meeting. It's fine --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think they're --
January 10, 2017
Page 21
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- because it's --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. All in favor of appointing
Commissioner Taylor as the alternate for the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That carries forward. And
now we have to nominate a chairman of this board.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm ready. Do you want to go
first?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll be happy to. I'd like to
nominate Commissioner Taylor --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Third.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- to serve as chair, and as part
of that motion I'd like to just make one quick -- a couple quick
comments.
I want to thank Commission Chairman Donna Fiala on the job
that she's done for the last year. You've been sort of a shining light on
the commission, and you've done a great job. And I want to thank you
publicly for that.
And I know, Commissioner Taylor, you're the -- besides
Commissioner Fiala, you're the most experienced up here, so I know
you'll do a great job.
January 10, 2017
Page 22
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm humbled at this. I didn't
expect it. I really didn't. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My goodness.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm two years.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It doesn't matter.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Considering a senior member.
You are 16, 17?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sixteen years, yeah. And probably in my
background they blocked me from taking chairmanship for many years
before I got it, yes. So it's interesting, yeah. But anyway. Welcome.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we need a vice chairman.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to nominate Andy
Solis.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second. You'll take that, won't
you?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I will. I'm honored.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
January 10, 2017
Page 23
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Now, do we change seats
before we move on?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. It's customary we take just a
couple-minute break while you rearrange your chairs and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we know where we're going to sit --
MR. OCHS: -- then we can reconvene.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- or do we just choose one?
MR. OCHS: Wherever you'd like.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Where would you like to sit?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In the vacant seat.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats so we can resume
the meeting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Ochs.
So I want to take a moment, please, to thank my colleague.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I want to stand up for this, and
you're going to sit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, for goodness sake.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, this is on behalf --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I stand up?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- of the Board of County
Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think we all should stand up.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- for your great leadership. And I can
tell you, I've watched you -- I don't want to say for years because,
frankly, we're almost the same age -- but I've watched you working,
and I've always admired how you connect with people and keep the
January 10, 2017
Page 24
people's work in your mind, what they want.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't want to say you're a legend
because that sounds kind of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like it; that's okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A living legend.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You are. You're an icon in this
community; not just in your community but in Collier County.
Everybody knows who Commissioner Donna Fiala is. You work
harder than anyone, and you have made so much difference in the
growth of this community, and I just really wanted to thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If anyone else would like to say
something briefly, I guess that would be -- this would be a great time.
And, Mr. McDaniel, Commissioner McDaniel, I would think it
would be you, sir, because you were a young pup when you first met
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I was. And, you know,
Commissioner Fiala, we had a comment earlier about districts and
who's the commissioner for what particular district. And
Commissioner Fiala epitomizes what I had to say briefly, and that is,
once we're elected by the individual districts, the district designation
goes away. Donna Fiala, Collier County Commissioner. And as our
Madam Chair said, everybody knows you, everybody loves you,
everybody respects you, and thank you for what you've done for our
community.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, everyone. Okay. On
with the meeting.
January 10, 2017
Page 25
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No words?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's been an absolute joy and a
humbling experience to be the chair. I was very proud to be the chair,
and even though we have had a short time, the five of us, working
together, it's been so pleasant. Everybody has respected one another
and been easy to work with. And I thank you for all of that, and I
thank you for your support. And it sure has been fun. It's been a good
ride.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're just starting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Huh?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're just starting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So thank you.
So, County Manager, let's --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS – ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 16, 2017 AS
NATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY, IN OBSERVANCE
OF THE NATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION OF
THE SAME NAME ISSUED EACH YEAR SINCE 1996.
ACCEPTED BY MEMBERS OF THE SALT & LIGHT
ADVISORY COUNCIL: GREG HARPER, FR. MICHAEL ORSI,
FR. PHILEMON PATITSAS, PASTOR TOM HARRIS, PASTOR
RICK BALDWIN AND PASTOR GREG BALL – ADOPTED
January 10, 2017
Page 26
Commissioners, that takes us to Item 4 on today's agenda. Item
4A is a proclamation designating January 16, 2017, as National
Religious Freedom Day in observance of the National Presidential
proclamation of the same name issued each year since 1996.
To be accepted by members of the Salt & Light Advisory
Council: Greg Harper, Father Michael Orsi, Farther Philemon Patitsas,
Pastor Tom Harris, Pastor Rick Baldwin, and Pastor Greg Ball.
If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
You're representing them all.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let's squeeze together, fellows.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It didn't flash.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you want to say --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I'm fine. Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE 20TH ANNUAL REV.
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY CELEBRATION IN
COLLIER COUNTY AND DESIGNATING JANUARY 16, 2017
AS A DAY TO REMEMBER DR. KING’S DREAM. ACCEPTED
BY DIANN KEEYS, PARADE CHAIR; RHONDA BURNS,
PARADE CO-CHAIR; VINCENT KEEYS, NAACP, PRESIDENT
ELECT; HAROLD WEEKS, NAACP PAST PRESIDENT; IRENE
WILLIAMS, PARADE CHAIR EMERITUS AND LISSETT
DELAROSA, PARADE COORDINATOR – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation recognizing the 20th
Annual Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Day celebration in
Collier County and designating January 16, 2017, as a day to
January 10, 2017
Page 27
remember Dr. King's Dream.
To be accepted by Diann Keeys, parade chair; Rhonda Burns,
parade co-chair; Vincent Keeys, NAACP president elect; Harold
Weeks, NAACP past president; Irene Williams, parade chair emeritus;
and Lissett DeLarosa, parade coordinator.
If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mr. County Manager, there is
just one brief correction in that proclamation in that our -- Mr. Keeys is
the newly installed president as of Sunday night. He's no longer the
president elect.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: At the time it was written it
was president elect, so -- but he is the pres.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'd also like to thank Mr. Weeks
for all of his wonderful support to the community and years and years
of it.
MR. WEEKS: Excuse me. I'm sorry somebody has to talk.
She's the chair lady. I've talked enough. It's her floor.
MS. KEEYS: Good morning, everyone. I'm Diane Keeys.
Thanks to the commissioners for their proclamation today.
I would like to invite everyone to join us Monday the 16th at the
Cambier Park for the celebration. If you'd like to be in the parade, the
parade will be at 3rd and Broad. Be there around 10. Mr. Weeks will
be doing the lineup.
I want to thank you all today. Have a great day.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just as a reminder to my colleagues and
to the city councils of Marco and Naples -- the City of Naples and to
January 10, 2017
Page 28
staff, we are walking together at the parade and hope you will join us.
We gather at Broad. We may not be there at 10 but, Mr. Weeks, we
will be there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the Republican Party was just
meeting last night, and they assured everybody, they were getting their
people all together to also be in the parade. So just know that they're
going to do their thing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 11, 2017 AS
HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS DAY IN COLLIER
COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY STEPHANIE VICK,
ADMINISTRATOR- FLORIDA DEPT. OF HEALTH-COLLIER
COUNTY; LINDA OBERHAUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-
SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN;
DETECTIVE SGT. WADE WILLIAMS, COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE-EXPLOITATION UNIT SUPERVISOR; AND
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating January 11,
2017, as Human Trafficking Awareness Day in Collier County.
To be accepted by Stephanie Vick, administrator for Florida
Department of Health for Collier County; Linda Oberhaus, executive
director, Shelter for Abused Women and Children; Detective Sergeant
Wade Williams, Collier County Sheriff's Office, Exploitation Unit
Supervisor; and Collier County Sheriff, Kevin Rambosk.
If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all you do. By the way,
January 10, 2017
Page 29
before we even finish, I want to announce to the audience -- if I may
just take the opportunity right now, I'm on the board of the Florida
Association of Counties, and our last conference, all of the states (sic)
were meeting together, 67 states, representatives from everybody, and
they announced from the podium to everyone that our Sheriff's
Department was the example that everybody needs to follow regarding
human trafficking.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, wow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was so pleased, so I thought
I'd make a public announcement on that.
(Applause.)
MS. VICK: Good morning, Commissioners. I'd just like to say
one additional thing.
I want to remind everyone that beyond the law enforcement
issues of human trafficking, there are health impacts that affect the
people involved. It can lead to teen pregnancy, STDs, communicable
diseases passed on. So it's very important that we pay attention to this
issue.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is Stephanie Vick from the
Health Department just so that our court stenographer knows.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I could get a motion to approve
today's proclamations, please.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion to approve today's
proclamations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
January 10, 2017
Page 30
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR JANUARY 2017 TO BUILD, LLC.
ACCEPTED BY BILL GASTON, FOUNDER & PRINCIPAL,
BUILD; AJ BREMERMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, BUILD; SCOTT
MCCONNELEE, PROJECT MANAGER, BUILD; SUSAN
KUHAR, ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, GREATER NAPLES
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND BETHANY SAWYER,
MEMBERSHIP ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST, GREATER
NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 5, presentations.
Item 5A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month
for January 2017 to BUILD, LLC. To be accepted by Bill Gaston,
founder and principal of BUILD; AJ Bremerman, vice president; Scott
McConnellee, project manager with BUILD; and Susan Kuhar and
Bethany Sawyer from the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
If you'd please step forward.
MR. GASTON: Bill Gaston with BUILD, LLC. Thank you for
this great honor, and thank you for your service to the county.
We founded BUILD 10 years ago targeting renovations, light
commercial, restaurants, clubhouses, and luxury residential
construction projects. Some of our notable projects and clients include
January 10, 2017
Page 31
the Culver's restaurants, the YMCA expansions both on Marco and in
Naples, numerous renovations to Arthrex's Creekside facility, and the
Audi VW and many other country club projects, including the
soon-to-be-completed Countryside renovation.
When we started, it was a great construction economy for six
months, and then everything fell apart. So we worked very hard
through a very competitive construction market for six years, and we
survived by providing great customer service and cherishing our
relationships with our clients that allowed for a large portion of our
work to be repeat clients.
Our reputation is everything to us, and we strive to be the best by
providing quality product, standing behind our work, catering to our
clients' needs during the process, providing an excellent work
environment for our team, giving back to many local charities and
nonprofits, and always paying our subcontractors on time. We know if
we can accomplish these goals, repeat business and referrals will
follow.
As a builder, we work very closely with the county building
department while still accomplishing their regulatory mission. I have
to say that they've made tremendous strides over the last few years and
really have become a pleasure to work with.
We know firsthand through our CBIA involvement the Building
Department leadership is really working hard to make this process
more efficient and effective, and we certainly appreciate it; the whole
building community does.
Thank you for recognizing BUILD with this tremendous honor.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE GEOFFREY SWETS,
January 10, 2017
Page 32
EMS BATTALION CHIEF, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AS THE 2016 EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR –
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 5B. This is a
recommendation to recognize Jeffrey Swets, EMS Battalion Chief with
our Administrative Service Department, as the 2016 Employee of the
Year. Jeff, if you'd please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Congrats.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
MR. SWETS: Gentlemen.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Well done. He wants me to go real slow when I
embarrass him here on TV.
Commissioners, while Jeff's getting his picture taken, I'll tell you
a little bit about his accomplishments.
Jeff's been with the county since 2007 working for our EMS
department. He was assigned a large project that included taking on
responsibility for dispatch procedures and computer-aided dispatch
upgrades.
He worked closely with the Collier County Sheriff's Office to
ensure that EMS was prepared for the switch to the new program. He's
also been in charge of arranging installation of a new system called
Locution, which is a station alerting system to alert the ambulance
crews when a call has been received. The program sends out warning
tones, strobe lights within the station and red lights to awaken crews at
night. He did a fantastic job at implementing this system.
His dedication and commitment to these projects and others, in
addition to his regular responsibilities as one of our battalion chiefs,
January 10, 2017
Page 33
makes him a very deserving Employee of the Year awardee.
Commissioners, it's my pleasure to present Jeff Swets, EMS
Battalion Chief, as your 2016 Employee of the Year.
Congratulations, Jeff.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And just for the viewing public, the
envelope that I handed Chief Swets was nothing more than a check,
which we do the -- Collier County does with Employees of the Month.
So I'm not saying he can retire on it, but it certainly will help in the
process.
MR. OCHS: I can guarantee you he can't retire on it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I've never looked.
And just before we proceed -- and my wonderful colleague to my
right reminded me, we have a wonderful display of art behind us. It's
from Valeria Ghoussaini, and she's a visual artist specializing in oil
painting. She -- it's based on her travels, and her paintings represent
her travels through Europe, the Middle and Far East, Africa, South
America, and the United States.
And since 2000 she has hosted and curated pop-up galleries
throughout Europe and all the U.S. locations such as Mercato and
Venetian Village in Naples. Her work can also be seen at the Naples
Zoo as part of the Turtles on the Town. And it's really lovely to have
this up here.
So thank you very much, Ms. Ghoussaini.
All right. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if we might move to Item 10, Board
of County Commissioners, and take care of those two items.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
Item #10A
January 10, 2017
Page 34
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOARD)
ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH
THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER -
MOTION TO APPROVE MEMORANDUM WITH THE
REMOVAL OF ITEM #4 AND TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER
SOLIS AS THE LIAISON BETWEEN THE CLERK, THE
COUNTY MANAGER AND THE PROCUREMENT
DEPARTMENT – APPROVED; MOTION TO DROP THE
GARNISHMENT CASE AGAINST THE CLERK – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10A was an item continued from your
December 13th, 2016, BCC meeting. This is a request that the Board
of County Commissioners enter into a memorandum of understanding
with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and comptroller. And
Commissioner Saunders has brought this item forward to the
commission. Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, and thank you,
Madam Chair.
I met with the County Manager, and I met with the Clerk, Dwight
Brock, to go over the proposed memorandum of understanding, and
we've reached an agreement. The original document had a Section 4,
and we're deleting that Section 4, and that's the only change to the
proposed memorandum of understanding.
I want to thank the Clerk of Courts, Mr. Brock, and the County
Manager, Mr. Ochs. I think we have a team working together. I don't
think we're going to see the acrimony that has occurred over the past
years. I think this board and our Clerk and our manager understand the
importance of team work and working together, and I think this
memorandum of understanding just simply provides a mechanism that
if there are some issues that come up -- and, quite frankly, I don't really
January 10, 2017
Page 35
expect any. But if some issues do come up, then there's a mechanism
to get those issues resolved quickly and to get the commission up to
date on what those issues are so we can solve them.
I want to thank the Manager for what he's doing in terms of our
Purchasing Department. And we also have -- this will be another
agenda item at a future meeting, but we do have changes to our
purchasing ordinance that both the Clerk and the Manager are working
on to make sure that this purchasing process that we have is one that
goes flawlessly.
So, again, publicly, I want to thank both Mr. Ochs and Mr. Brock
for their efforts and ask the commission to approve this memorandum
of understanding and to appoint one of us as a liaison simply to help
communications between the Board, the Manager, and the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to make --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I do want to make a motion. It
was me that held it up just a little bit because I hadn't read -- we didn't
have in our packets the two different agreements, and I hadn't been
able to view them. They're perfect; everything is good. I've spoken
with Crystal Kinzel. I asked her any questions that I had; everything is
fine there.
And I would like to suggest that maybe we have Andy Solis as
our representative to work with the Clerk of Courts. And so with that,
I make a motion to approve and with Andy Solis as the representative
from our County Commission.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: I just want to take a brief moment to thank the
Board and Mr. Brock and particularly Commissioner Saunders for
January 10, 2017
Page 36
bringing this forward. I fully support the memorandum of
understanding. I appreciate his consideration of my concerns. And I
look forward to a very cooperative, positive working relationship
between our agencies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Won't this be nice.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I also would like to thank
Commissioner Saunders for taking the initiative in doing this. This is a
wonderful new year's present to the taxpayers of Collier County. This
is definitely turning a new page, and you're to be commended for your
involvement on this.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we have a motion on the floor and a
second. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The ayes carry it.
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. You didn't call for
discussion on it, and I just wanted to ask Andy if he wanted to -- are
you okay with that, with your prior --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's too late now. We've
already voted.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's too late now. I hesitated.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Light your button early.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I reconsider? No. No, I am, and
I also would like to commend the County Manager and Mr. Brock for
January 10, 2017
Page 37
working together to, I think, put the past behind us and help us work
more efficiently. And to the extent that I can -- I can help in any future
disputes, I look forward to doing that, and hopefully we don't have any.
But a lot of work has gone into this by staff, and I think it's a
wonderful sign. It's a great way to start the new year, and I also thank
Commissioner Saunders for taking the initiative on this as well.
MR. BROCK: Thank you, Commissioners. I think this is a great
step in trying to make this work much better. Obviously, you have a
job to do, and the Clerk's Office has a job to do as well. And I think
this will lead to greater harmony in the process, and I'd like to thank
both Nick and Leo for working with us in making this happen. And I
think this is a new leaf, and I appreciate it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, thank you. One more thing on
this issue is I'd like to see if I have support to drop the garnishment
case against the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would move to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Third.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Happy New Year, taxpayers of Collier
County.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
January 10, 2017
Page 38
Item #10B
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE
AN ORDINANCE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION WHICH
WOULD AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY ETHICS
ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED), TO
REINSTATE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON THE ACCEPTANCE
OF GIFTS BY ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND ALL COUNTY
EMPLOYEES – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 10B. This is a
recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to advertise an
ordinance for future consideration amending the Collier County ethics
ordinance. Commissioner Taylor brought this item forward. Madam
Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
This has been on my mind, frankly, since it was changed in -- to
me, a drastic change in 2013. I feel that it is important to keep ethics in
the foremost of what we do. It's a huge and important signal to the
taxpayers of Collier County and, frankly, the ordinance has stood the
test of time. I'm not sure why it was changed, but we are in
government, and government has different rules than the private sector.
I think we can all -- I think -- Commissioner Fiala, you lived
under the ordinance, and I don't see why we can't continue to live
under the ordinance prior to 2013.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree. One of the things we
all want our constituents, our community to know is that we're not
taking any handouts from anybody. Even if it's just -- even if it's just a
dinner or something. And so we just want to make sure -- and this
ordinance just puts it back where it was before. We had some others
January 10, 2017
Page 39
on that felt that it wasn't needed, but I think it's important to have it.
And then it gives us all a guideline, and it gives you some confidence
to know that there are some laws in place. So I make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you very
much.
And I believe it's the first reading. Do we have two readings on
this, or is this --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to advertise an ordinance,
so now --
MR. OCHS: And then it will come back on a future agenda, on
your summary agenda for adoption.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome.
Item #11A
January 10, 2017
Page 40
REVIEW A DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WILL IMPLEMENT A
TWELVE MONTH MORATORIUM ON NEW APPLICATIONS
FOR GAS STATIONS, CAR WASHES, PAWN SHOPS AND
SELF- STORAGE FACILITIES IN ALL COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS THAT LIST THESE USES AS PERMITTED USES,
BUT ALLOW FOR THESE USES TO BE PROCESSED AS
CONDITIONAL USES WHILE STAFF VETS THE
COMPATIBILITY AND IMPACT OF IDENTIFIED USES
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS AND BRINGS
FORWARD LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS TO
PROMOTE THE VISION FOR THE EAST TRAIL CORRIDOR
STUDY. THIS MORATORIUM IS GEOGRAPHICALLY
LIMITED TO BOTH SIDES OF U.S. 41 FROM THE PALM
STREET/COMMERCIAL DRIVE/U.S.41 INTERSECTION TO
THE PRICE STREET/U.S.41 INTERSECTION AND IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL PUDS WITHIN
THE IDENTIFIED CORRIDOR - MOTION TO IMPOSE A
MORATORIUM EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 13, 2016 ON GAS
STATIONS, CAR WASHES, PAWNSHOPS AND SELF-
STORAGE FACILITIES, EXEMPTING THE PRE-APPLICATION
PROCESS ON CURRENT APPROVED PROJECTS AND STAFF
TO COME BACK WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A
CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS – FAILED; MOTION TO
RECONSIDER THE MORATORIUM – APPROVED; MOTION
TO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 13,
2016 FOR TWELVE MONTHS ON GAS STATIONS, CAR
WASHES, PAWNSHOPS AND SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES,
EXEMPTING THE PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS ON
CURRENT APPROVED PROJECTS AND STAFF TO COME
BACK WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A
CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
January 10, 2017
Page 41
PUD’S THAT HAVE BEEN THROUGH AN AMENDMENT OR
ADOPTION PROCESS AND VETTED – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 11A. This is a
recommendation to review a draft ordinance that will implement a
12-month moratorium on new applications for gas station, car washes,
porn (sic) shops, and self-storage facilities in the East Trail corridor.
This item was initiated at the last meeting at the request of
Commissioner Fiala, and Mr. Bosi will make a brief presentation or
respond to questions from the Board.
MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commission. Mike Bosi, Planning
and Zoning Director.
At the December 13th public hearing, the Board discussed a
potential for drafting a moratorium related to the East Naples Visions
Corridor Study that was performed in 2010 by the East Naples
Foundation.
During the discussion, there was a number of uses that were
addressed that the Board felt that there was some additional
compatibility, additional evaluation needed to see how those uses fit
within that vision study and the long-range planning for how that
corridor along U.S. 41 would fit.
They identified, as the County Manager has read into the record,
pawn shops, gas stations, car washes, and self-storage facilities as the
four uses that they wanted to see that moratorium applied to, but also
during that discussion there was caution and -- from the perspective of
some of the commissioners about not preventing a good product to
move forward.
And as such, based upon that direction, staff has crafted a
moratorium that wouldn't prevent these uses from moving forward.
The manner in which we've decided upon or drafted to decide upon
was to have these uses not follow a permitted use route, which is just
January 10, 2017
Page 42
an administrative review and a submittal of a site development plan
satisfaction of the Land Development Code standards but to require a
conditional-use process. It's the process that's established for how we
determine compatibility and allows for a greater input from
surrounding neighborhoods within the process as to their perspective
and what they feel was needed for compatibility within that individual
localized area. That's the draft.
In addition, staff, during the discussion, had taken notes and had
included an exemption for commercial and mixed-use PUDs. The
rationale behind that thought was -- the issue was compatibility. How
does it fit within the overall land use arrangement for this area?
The PUDs are unique in a sense that all those uses that were in
those PUDs were required to go through a neighborhood information
meeting, a Planning Commission meeting, a Board of County
Commissioners meeting. So the arrangement of how those
commercial uses interact with the residential uses were already
contemplated, have already been vetted through the public process;
therefore, it was suggested by staff that we exempt commercial. And I
had forgot to include mixed-use PUDs. There are a number of five
mixed-use PUDs that sit along within this corridor as suggested.
Now, these are just the -- the ordinance before you right now is a
draft, so there's opportunity, based upon the Board's discussion, to
modify it whichever way the Board thinks was appropriate. Staff
really felt that we were getting the spirit of what the Board was asking
for, but we knew that the Board wanted this meeting to additionally
discuss some additional uses maybe, but also to shape the specifics of
what would be adopted if the Board does decide to move forward.
With that backdrop, I, you know, would like to answer any
questions that the Board may have, and I do know that there are a
number of public speakers that have chimed in with me as well over
the phone and through emails about some of their perspective of the
January 10, 2017
Page 43
requested action that -- I think the Board would probably benefit from
those discussions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What I'd like to do -- because this
emanated from our board, I would like to ask our board to ask Mr.
Bosi any questions before we hear from the public speakers, and I'll
start with Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First, by way of explanation,
we've been trying to encourage, being that there's so much land for sale
right now all along the trail and, on top of that, there are many
buildings that are for sale that could be improved upon -- by the way,
you can buy those buildings for a business, and you don't even have to
pay an impact fee on that, which is a great buy, by the way, because
you've got businesses or buildings that have been empty can be -- the
money that would have been spent for an impact fee can be spent on
fixing the building up. It's quite a nice savings.
But, anyway, so we've been trying to encourage some retail shops
and restaurants to come in, because we lack most of that in this area.
We finally had our first retail clothing store open, first one in decades,
and that was the Stein Mart. People just don't come to this area. And
what we were hoping to do was encourage people to bring their own
businesses here. There's 139 uses that they can use in this area, and I
guess it multiplies out to more under each one of those uses still, so
there's a lot of uses that can be used.
And what we're hoping for is to make it a thriving, vibrant road
within our community that people will want to come here for and our
people don't have to travel to other areas, keeping the traffic off the
roads in other areas so that they can go and shop here and restaurant
here and go to have their dog taken care of or, you know, shoes fixed.
We would love to have a shoe store or something like that.
Anyway, but some of the -- some of these businesses that I've
mentioned, they're not a place where you can go to shop. There is no
January 10, 2017
Page 44
impulse buying there, like, for instance, a Dairy Queen. You know, it's
an impulse buy. You pass it and think, ooh, I think I need an ice cream
cone, but you don't do that with a storage unit.
And so I was hoping -- I asked our staff about it. I said, well,
what do we do to plan for this so that we have a road map for what we
want to be as we work this out, and they said, well, you don't even
have a master plan in place. You have to have something. And you
need a corridor study to find out what you want to do.
Well, already, there's master plans going on for the City of
Golden Gate, another one for Golden Gate Estates, another one for
Immokalee. They've all got their master plans in place. And I thought,
well, you know what? We should be able to do that, too.
So I asked some staff members, you know, can I do that, too, and
they said yes. Of course, I've got other commissioners that I need to
work with me on this. But the point is not to stop anybody but to form
a plan so that we all know what is expected to come to that area in the
future.
And whatever happens -- you know, it's like we have almost a
clean slate, because whatever happens now -- a lot of land is empty, a
lot of buildings are -- need to be refurbished and so forth. What we do
now programs us for what we're going to look like in the future, and
it's going to stay here a long time.
So we have to be very careful of what we do, and I'm hoping that
I can get the other commissioners to work with me on that. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I've got a couple
questions for the County Attorney and a couple comments. I don't
particularly have any issue with a temporary moratorium. And it's my
understanding that a temporary moratorium does not trigger a Bert
Harris property rights claim. So the first question is, does this put us in
January 10, 2017
Page 45
a position of some jeopardy for a Bert Harris claim?
And then the second part of that question is, we're implementing a
conditional-use process, and it seems to me -- and, again, this is a
question -- that that may be considered a Land Development Code
change that would require a much more formal process for adoption.
So I want to make sure that we don't trigger a Bert Harris issue,
and I want to make sure that we're not doing something that would be
considered inappropriate in terms of how we adopt ordinances. Those
two questions.
MR. KLATZKOW: With respect to the first question, there is a
12-month Safe Harbor Provision in the Bert Harris Act so that you can
declare a moratorium up to 12 months, and you'll be fine. After that,
basically you're on your own. So I guess the first question, you may
want to talk to staff as to whether they can get this plan implemented
within 12 months.
With respect to your second question, I don't know that we really
are thinking of the full conditional-use process for the exemption. I
know Commissioner McDaniel was looking at a more rapid approach
than that. The key with the conditional use is it gives you certain
criteria that the Board could look at. That doesn't mean that you have
to file the application, go through staff, go through the Planning
Commission, get it publicly vetted and go here, because the rights are
already completely permitted under our zoning code.
But if we were to take the core criteria set forth in the conditional
use, we could put together a process that would be quick, that they can
get to the Board with, and then the Board would have some criteria to
review to see whether or not to use that exemption.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So we're okay in terms
of Bert Harris, and we're okay in terms of the more formal process that
you generally go through for Land Development Code amendments.
And then just the last issue that I think the Board needs to discuss
January 10, 2017
Page 46
-- and I know we're going to have some comments from folks -- we do
have a couple of individual property owners that have been in the
process for a substantial amount of time. One, I believe, has a storage
facility and another, I believe, is representing a gas station operator.
Both of those individuals have discussed this with me. They've
been in the process with the county for a substantial amount of time,
and they've expended a substantial amount of money up to this point in
reliance on the existing zone.
And so I don't know if that creates a problem or whether we
should consider an exemption as part of this for individual property
owners that have either filed an application, which is, you know, a
clear point, or applicants or -- potential applicants that have been in the
process and can demonstrate that they have had pre-application
meetings or retained land use attorneys and experts and have put
together a plan for one of those types of uses.
MR. KLATZKOW: We have typically used the -- and, Mike,
correct me if I'm wrong. We've typically used filing an application as
the date. That doesn't mean the Board can't direct staff that, for
example, the first pre-app meeting would be the date. That's
something we could show some evidence of.
I don't know, their first meeting with an attorney, how we could
ever prove that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I was thinking of the
more formal pre-application.
MR. KLATZKOW: If they had a pre-app meeting, if the Board
chose, we could go that route as being the cut-off date. So anybody
who had a pre-app meeting would be, in essence, outside this process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Okay. I wasn't paying
attention.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think I was next.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
January 10, 2017
Page 47
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis was
second.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A couple of questions on the
exclusion of the PUDs. And I understand what we're trying to do and,
Commissioner Fiala, what your intent is. I'm just a little concerned
that, you know, excluding commercial PUDs that allow for this
particular use, the uses -- or the uses that are of concern, is that going
to open us up?
Because I understand the issue from staff's perspective was that in
the PUD process those uses were vetted in the context of the PUD and
the public having input in that.
And I'm, to some extent, thinking out loud, and I want to make
sure that I understand this, is that over time things have changed along
that corridor; I think that's the concern. So it seems to me that if things
have changed and there needs to be a public vetting of more of these
uses in the same area, then I'm still trying to reconcile how a PUD that
may have been approved years ago with these uses -- how to exclude
that without opening up the county to some potential claims as far as
the moratorium.
And I'll pose the legal issue to the County Attorney as well.
MR. KLATZKOW: I guess the issue was that when you went
through the PUD process -- and most of these PUDs were relatively
recent in time; right, Michael?
MR. BOSI: Correct. And just to add further to this discussion for
everyone's benefit, is the reason why we have that strip commercial
zoning along U.S. 41 is the outdated model of where we allocated
commercial. In 1989 we said that that is no longer the arrangement of
how -- where we want to locate our commercial uses, but we recognize
you cannot remove that commercial use that already was
predesignated. So that's designated prior to the adoption of our current
1989 Growth Management Plan.
January 10, 2017
Page 48
It's recognized as consistent by policy so, therefore, any
evaluation of the uses that are allocated within any one of those
commercial zoning districts have not been analyzed and reviewed for
compatibility in the way that we felt that the commercial and the
mixed-use PUDs were provided for in terms of the land uses that were
being suggested. That was another clarifying distinction in terms of
why we thought it was appropriate to treat a similar class somewhat
differently.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And so the concern is that --
essentially, that these uses haven't really been vetted since, I think you
said, '89.
MR. BOSI: Those -- that strip corridor --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- hasn't been evaluated.
I will add, though, that the gas station uses and the car wash uses
do have supplemental standards within our Land Development Code.
We have -- as a staff, have identified that these uses -- and when
they're in close proximity to residential development or just uses
stand-alone that there are components -- additional components
beyond just our traditional development standards that are applicable
to each one of those specific uses.
So there has been some effort from this government and from the
Planning Department to take additional safeguards to ensure those
levels of compatibility, and those are -- both gas stations and car
washes have additional supplemental standards that are contained in
Chapter 5 of our Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Do we have any idea how many of
these commercial PUDs there are and how old they are?
MR. BOSI: There's five: Courthouse Shadows, Sabal Palm,
Wentworth Estates, Mauceli PUD, Vincentian PUD -- there's actually
six. There's also Lely mixed-use PUD as well.
January 10, 2017
Page 49
So a range of relatively new, Lake Vincentian, to some of the
longer standing, such as the Mauceli and the Wentworth, but some of
these have been -- in the case of Wentworth, it was just recent, within
the past year, we've had an amendment to it, so there's been further
contemplation in that regard.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I would be in favor of this
with the understanding, I think, that we change what "pending" means
or the issue that Commissioner Saunders brought up as to when they've
actually begun the process.
MR. KLATZKOW: And you want that as of the first pre-app
meeting?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, exactly. I would be in favor
of providing for that change.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what does that mean? I'm sorry.
MR. BOSI: What that would mean is if an individual applicant
had conducted a pre-application meeting in the past year, or year and a
half is the window for that pre-application meeting to still be valid, if
they had engaged in that pre-application meeting but not yet submitted
an application, that applicant could submit an application. It would not
be subject to the moratorium.
And I also will note, in one of the four uses that we have
identified, the self-storage facility, in C4 that's a conditional use as
suggested without this moratorium. So -- and there is currently a
conditional use that is running through the process for a self-storage
facility.
So, really, self-storage facilities, other than if they were in a C5 --
and there's very few parcels that are zoned C5 -- that this moratorium
really has no effect upon that self-storage facility, because they do
require a conditional use by our current zoning in the C4 zoning
district.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, then that raises, I guess,
January 10, 2017
Page 50
another question, because we were talking about coming up with some
hybrid process for these uses.
If in C4, or if that particular one is already required to go through
the conditional-use process, are we shortcutting something that we're
not intending to shortcut?
MR. BOSI: That's a very good point, and that would relate back
to questions that I was going to have with the Board of County
Commissioners, because we don't have an established (sic) of a
conditional-use like process. So we would have -- I would have to get
clarification from this board specifically as to what you would like to
see eliminated from the conditional-use process. Conditional-use
process requires --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. The conditional use stays, okay.
You'd have to go through public hearings to modify that.
All I was saying was that this -- from what I'm hearing, this board
wants some sort of safety valve on the moratorium so that if
somebody's come in who's unduly burdened, that the Board can say,
yes, you can go ahead.
That's going to require some form of criteria to review; otherwise,
by definition, it would be arbitrary because you'd say yes to one guy
and no to the other guy, and what's the basis; so that the thought
process was we'll use the criteria set forth in the conditional use so you
have something to evaluate but not go through the conditional-use
process. So it's not really conditional --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Unless required?
MR. KLATZKOW: Unless required.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or unless already required by the
ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. But for the purposes of the
moratorium, for the safety valve, all right, we'll bring an item directly
to the Board, the Board will get to review the item, okay, but you'll
January 10, 2017
Page 51
have some criteria to review that item against. That would be the
criteria set forth in the conditional-use process, which is basically a
compatibility analysis.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I am the one that spoke
about this before, and we certainly understand the reason why you've
brought this forward, but I think it's a lot larger looming issue than
legal issues, as my associates on the other end of the dais have to say
with regard to the liability of our community.
This is a basic property rights issue. We're dealing with the two
most lucrative commercial zoning districts in our county, vested real
property rights that folks have had virtually since time in memorial,
since the late '80s, actually, when these were put in place.
Are we behind in our planning processes? Absolutely. Is it
necessary that we make every effort to incentivize, which is what
you're actually looking to do to help direct the type of development
that a community thinks that they want to see out there, but at the same
time we've got property rights for people that own land and have been
paying taxes forever on. And I have a horrible -- I have a very, very
difficult time with a moratorium.
I spoke at the last month's meeting about decisions. We, the
Board, make decisions, and out of every decision we make, there are
unintended consequences that come. And we are already seeing the tip
of the iceberg of unintended consequences and negative impacts on
property owners on the East Trail that are already in the process.
The lack of formality with regard to the language that we -- and I
have to say this, and I apologize personally. I was -- I wasn't aware we
were implementing -- I knew we did implement as of the effective
date, December 13th, but I thought that safety valve that our County
Attorney had, that I had language stipulated about specifically a simple
exemption process, simple exemption process.
January 10, 2017
Page 52
I wasn't consulted with with regard to my thoughts as to what
actually "simple" was. And staff came up with a conditional use, a
modification of the conditional use, and it certainly wasn't the safety
valve that I was looking to provide for folks that were already in the
process at some stage of the game, had already been through -- there
may be others that haven't even heard about this yet -- I'm sure the
word is spreading rather quickly now -- that are in some form of
contractual negotiations for purchasers and sellers. That's the number
one -- that's the number one. That safety valve that I talked about, I
thought, by implementing it or allowing it to be implemented on the
13th and the safety valve or a simple exemption process was going to
protect people's property rights that were already in some form or
fashion.
And here we are today, necessarily a month later, and we're still
trying to come up with a definition as to what, in fact -- and how the
language should be effectuated to enact this moratorium. And I don't
feel comfortable enacting a moratorium with the lack of specificity that
we've got right now.
Commissioner Solis brought up a circumstance that has to do
with the exemption of the PUDs. And the PUDs are contiguous to
already hard zoned C4 and C5 pieces of property, lands. And we're --
by exempting PUDs that have those allowable uses, we're allowing
those projects to go forward and providing for an unfair advantage for
people that are zoned PUDs and exempted out of this moratorium for
people that are hard zoned.
I think I've said just about enough. I'm not really sure that -- it
would be my -- it would be my wish that we were to rescind this
moratorium until such time as we can have specific language and
actually ascertain what the unintended consequences of its enactment,
in fact, are.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to speak a little bit on this, too.
January 10, 2017
Page 53
And I'd like to ask Mr. Bosi, how long do you anticipate -- frankly, I
support the concept of studying the corridor, not only this corridor, but
the Naples Park corridor.
This 41 -- and even in the city, but I don't think that's our purview.
But it's the old way we did things, and it's due to be studied and looked
at.
So I support my colleague to my right; however, from a very
practical standpoint, how long would it take to do a corridor study?
Could you do a corridor study in 12 months?
MR. BOSI: If you remember from the workshop that we had at
the beginning on the 3rd of January, we provided the Board of County
Commissioners a list of the number of Growth Management Plan
initiatives, staff -- or board-directed initiatives with the four
Immokalee RLSA rural fringe mixed-use district, Golden Gate, and the
Land Development Code amendments that would be associated with
those. We also indicated the number of moratoriums that have been
adopted by the previous board, proposed board, as well as the
initiatives, whether it be the cell towers, whether it be additional
standards for gas stations over a certain number of pumps, whether it
be for -- I think there were probably five or six other additional
planning initiatives. So that's a constraint upon resources.
The second part is related to the East Naples Foundation Corridor
Study. If you read that study, what the suggestion is, is there's more of
a desire for, say, destination resort hotels. Well, the depth of these
commercial properties do not provide for that. So what that study
suggests is increasing the commercial depth, that means encroaching
upon residential neighbors. That means adjusting your Growth
Management Plan. That's a two-year process.
If you really -- a corridor study such as what would be suggested
is a little bit different than evaluating the four individual uses and how
those uses fit within the overall land use arrangement. Two different
January 10, 2017
Page 54
things.
The corridor study is a much longer elongated public process that
requires numerous meetings with your public, coordination with your
Planning Commission, and then ultimately presentation to the Board of
County Commissioners.
The evaluation of how you deal with four individual land uses
that were cited by this board as concern and how you would deal with
those appropriated based upon the current zoning is a much smaller
window, much, much tighter, narrow focus and, because of that, the 12
months would provide sufficient -- I think sufficient to satisfy it.
But if we adopt a 12-month moratorium and we go -- and the
intention is to go out and start an earnest public planning process with
the community, there -- there would be very -- a very low probability
of being able to accomplish all of that within a 12-month period in the
manner which the process takes not only for interacting with the public
but interacting with the advisory boards and the various other civic
associations and other interested parties within there.
So that's a long answer to say that it depends upon the scope of
what you guys are asking -- or what the Board is asking the planning
staff to perform. A much larger full-bore corridor study is a different
endeavor and expectation to complete that. For Land Development
Code amendments would be -- I think, would be somewhat a difficult
task to perform.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we have a 12-month moratorium.
We undertake a corridor study, it's not completed when the
moratorium is finished, and all bets are off, and we go back to square
one again.
MR. BOSI: I would --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Until we can pass the LDC and make
some decisions up here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, unless staff can bring this
January 10, 2017
Page 55
back to you within 12 months, don't declare the moratorium.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And it's really 11 months.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: From now.
MR. KLATZKOW: The moratorium is a tool to get you -- is to
bridge you between a Point A and Point B. But Point B's got to be,
from this point in time, 11 months from now.
From what I'm hearing from Mr. Bosi is, if you're looking for a
full corridor study and to fully redo this, you're going to require Comp.
Plan amendments followed by LDC amendments. So you're looking at
two-and-a-half, three years, Michael, more or less?
MR. BOSI: Two years would -- if there's Comp Plan
amendments associated with it, and if you wanted to fulfill that study,
the Comp Plan would be required to be amended, and that does take a
12- to 18-month process, so --
MR. KLATZKOW: And then you'd have to implement the
Comp Plan with an LDC amendment cycle.
So if you want the moratorium, what I think I'm hearing Mr. Bosi
saying is, narrow what you're asking. If you want to limit it to those
four uses, all right, we might be able to get you under the 12-month
requirement. If you're looking for the full-bore study, full-bore
changes, from what I'm hearing from Michael, it's a very lengthy
process.
It was like the golf course moratorium we did; very, very specific.
And so we're able to implement it within 12 months. The charter
school moratorium we did was very specific. We were able to do it
within 12 months. Give us something that's specific, and we can get
you there.
If it's just this broad mandate to do a corridor study to work with
the public and then bring back Comprehensive Plan changes, we can't
get you there in time is what I'm hearing.
January 10, 2017
Page 56
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Saunders?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I was next.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, he was.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I'll defer to Commissioner
Fiala.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine.
What I wanted to say, first of all, I was heartened to get a
notification that the businesses along that corridor were actually
rallying to support the effort because they felt that they, too, would
benefit by having a plan in place. They're out there now getting
signatures on a petition to say that we support the effort because we
would like to see this improve as well, number one.
Number two is, I think that -- no matter who owns property there
-- so say, for instance, they're selling it to somebody who wants to
build a three-story -- there's quite a few going -- 3-story self-storage
units, and there's -- I understand there's quite a few that are wanting to
buy land to build three-story storage units. Well, you know, they've
still got the land, and they can sell it to somebody who would actually
want to build something that falls right in the category that staff and
the community -- because the community will be involved. Staff and
the community together will suggest to them, yeah, you can do this,
this, this, and this. I mean, there's a lot of other uses for the land that
they already own. It's not like they're going to lose the land or
anything.
And so I think that if we could help shape and say, well, here are
all the things that you can do, that would give them an opportunity to
use their land but use it for the benefit of everybody and the persons
who buy it, then, will know that their business is going to be successful
because the people in the community want it, and they voted for it.
And I can get people together in the snap of a finger, and you
January 10, 2017
Page 57
know that. So, you know, we can have plenty of community meetings
in February and March when all of the people are here. But I would
just love to do that.
I feel this is our one opportunity to make a difference in our
appearance, and I would need you to work with me on this. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I've got a
question for staff, and then I want to recommend a procedure to go
forward on this. First of all, how many registered speakers do we have
on this particular item?
MR. MILLER: I have 10 registered speakers.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You have 10.
Madam Chair, I know that typically you hear the comments from
the public and then you ask for a motion.
I'm going to make a motion. If there's a second for that motion,
then I want the public to comment on that motion, and it's -- I think the
motion is as far as I'd be willing to go.
And so if there's a second for it, then there's an opportunity;
otherwise, I would not be supportive of this broader moratorium.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And rest assured, for the public, we
won't vote on the motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There will be a motion on the floor if
there is a second, and then we will hear from you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then we'll know -- and the
public can comment as to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't want a motion before you
hear from the public, do you?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, I think, because then the
public will have an idea of what we're willing to vote on.
January 10, 2017
Page 58
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The motion would be to
impose a moratorium effective December 13th on the four uses, gas
stations, car washes, pawn shops, and self-storage facilities within the
area that's been described; that this will not apply to any individual
property owners or individuals that have filed an application for one of
those four uses or who have already proceeded and completed an
initial pre-application meeting.
The purpose of the moratorium is to give staff the opportunity to
develop a change to our Land Development Code that will create in
this area a conditional-use process for those four uses; not a study of
the entire area, not a planning document, but just focus on those four
issues and to develop a conditional-use process so that we can go
through and determine whether or not that particular use in the PUDs,
as well the other zoning districts, is a reasonable use compared to
what's around it. So that would be the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor. Do I
hear a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question before I move
forward. So if we just focus on those four and we don't focus on what
it's going to look like in the end, can we do that alongside of so that
people know what they can use their land for and how they can benefit
and how the community can benefit, or can we not do that?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My light's been on forever.
MR. BOSI: During the public process, we most certainly can
make available all the uses that are contained within the C4 and C5
zoning district.
So, I mean, that would not be a hard task to satisfy. I think trying
to -- trying to dictate a corridor study would be a much taller task than
that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor. Do I
January 10, 2017
Page 59
hear a second to that motion by Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a second. Okay. So
--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner McDaniel?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioners McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I'm going to
comment with regard to that. And, Commissioner Saunders, it isn't --
it isn't that I'm in disagreement with your efforts there to try to get to
where we're going. It's just the lack of specificity with regard to your
motion, the interpretation of your motion by our staff, having myself
right here in the position right now talking about the unintended
consequences of any decision that we make, necessarily, one; to their
interpretation of my safety valve, as our County Attorney spoke of,
with regard to the exemption, a simple exemption. I am concerned
about allowing this moratorium to go forward with the lack of
specificity that's there.
By no means am I in disagreement with Commissioner Fiala with
regard to the incentivization process. I would like to suggest that
because of the lack of specificity with regard to the unintended
consequences of the enactment of this moratorium, that we insight our
staff to come back to us quickly with things that we as a board can do
that are, in fact, incentives to lead the process from incentivization
standpoint in lieu of a penalization standpoint. Moratoriums are a
penalization.
Because we're behind in our planning processes, I don't think we
should penalize the people who have these vested personal real
property rights.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just a question to clarify the motion,
January 10, 2017
Page 60
for me, anyway, is the conditional-use process -- we already have a set
conditional-use process. Was the motion intended to implement that or
a conditional use like -- some other abbreviated process?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, the motion was -- there's
obviously a concern with those four types of uses in this corridor. We
can't do a corridor study within any reasonable period of time for a
moratorium. And so I thought that staff can come back with an
ordinance that requires a conditional-use process. They'd have to go
through the Land Development Code amendment, but they can do an
ordinance that would require, in that corridor, a full conditional-use
process --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Full conditional.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- so it comes to us if we want
to -- and then we can evaluate the compatibility with the
neighborhood. And I thought that would get at what Commissioner
Fiala's trying to do is to make sure that these uses are really fully vetted
going forward but, at the same time, I know we have two property
owners that have either filed an application; I think one of them may
have filed an application today. But both of them have been through
the pre-application process, they've expended a significant amount of
money on land planning, and they've got a process in place for one of
these four uses.
So that would -- the motion would exempt anyone that's been in
the pre-application process, but, going forward, staff would come back
with a full conditional-use process for those four uses in the corridor.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Attorney, would a zoning in
progress -- there's a process by which we make a decision that we want
to develop conditional uses for these four issues, and it wouldn't
require a moratorium; it would give notice to folks that -- would that
apply here?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, in the sense you have a moratorium,
January 10, 2017
Page 61
you just have a moratorium on four uses, and it would apply.
And I think I understand the motion, Commissioner. Just for
clarity, do you want us to include some sort of exemption process
between now and the time staff can get back with the LDC
amendments?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. Just, the only exemption
would be pre-application meeting has already occurred.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I think we have a court reporter
break. It's not that I'm going to discount our public, but we are going
to take --
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, did you get a second on that motion?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We did get a second; Commissioner
Fiala. Yeah, there's a motion by Commissioner Saunders and a second
by Commissioner Fiala. I'd like to take five minutes, if that's okay, and
let's give her a break, and we'll be right back.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. If you'd take
your seat, please.
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Please take your seats so we can resume the meeting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those of you who wish to speak on this
item, please know that the time limit is three minutes. If you agree
with the speaker preceding you, and if you would like to, you could
just say you agree with them and cede your time to the chair and to this
board.
Troy?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. We have 10 registered speakers. I
would ask the speakers to alternate using both podiums. Your first
speaker is Jane Toomajian. She'll be followed by Ken Gallander, if I'm
saying that right, hopefully.
January 10, 2017
Page 62
MR. GALLANDER: Yes. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Who's the second speaker?
MR. MILLER: Ken Gallander.
MR. OCHS: Ken?
MR. MILLER: And the first speaker is Jane Toomajian. Am I
saying that -- Jane, if you're here? Ken, over there.
MS. TOOMAJIAN: I'm not used to speaking, so I'm not sure if
I'm going to tell you what I thought.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If you would speak --
MR. MILLER: There you go.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- and identify yourself, please.
MS. TOOMAJIAN: Okay. I'm Jane Toomajian. I'm on the board
for Pepperwood Condo Association which abuts the Naples South
Plaza where the Wawa station has been under consideration for
moving in.
And we have -- well, I have called Donna's office numerous times
when they started with the fence regulation. And because of that type
of a boundary between the gas station property and our living property,
we've all been in favor of this.
And we've had meetings with the people from the station and
from the people that own the property, and they have explained and
showed us numerous plans. And I just wanted to say that I even got a
message this morning from the president to make sure that we said we
were all in favor.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ken Gallander. He'll be
followed by Robert D. Pritt.
MR. GALLANDER: Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair
and Commissioners. My name's Ken Gallander. I'm with Morris
Depew Associates down from Fort Myers. It's my first time; hopefully
January 10, 2017
Page 63
not last time.
But I'm representing our client, Mr. Tony Ruiz of Surf Suds,
LLC. First we want to express our support for this vision for this East
Trail corridor study that was initially discussed, the proposed
ordinance that was described by Mr. Bosi, and now the motion that's
on the table.
The project we're working on is located on Tamiami Trail East
within the Sabal Bay mixed-use planned development, which was
approved by Ordinance 05-59 and further amended in 2012 under
Ordinance 1212.
Our client purchased the property in October of 2016 after a
formal pre-application meeting that he had in 2016 with staff to
develop a car wash facility, which is an approved use within the Sabal
Bay mixed-use planned development.
So based on our reading and understanding of the moratorium and
the implementing ordinance and now the motion on the floor, we're in
support of this, staff's -- and the recommendation. We simply just
want to put on the record that the proposed commercial uses within
that mixed-use planned development, because of the prior entitlement
approvals that were conducted as was described before with the public
meetings, the neighborhood meetings and whatnot, and the select and
specific uses that include that car wash, the development standards, the
commitment and conditions, development standards, are compatible
and complementary to the existing land uses in that area.
So at this point, I kind of make this simple and short, but we're in
support of what is being said here. And if I can answer any questions,
I'd be happy to at this point or later.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Robert Pritt. He'll be
January 10, 2017
Page 64
followed by Michael Fernandez.
MR. PRITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MR. PRITT: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. You know, you
only have three minutes.
MR. PRITT: Thank you. Okay. I have less now.
I'll try to make this shorter than I was going to make it. I did send
each and every one of you a letter outlining our concerns, both legal
concerns and practical concerns.
I represent American Commercial Realty, which runs the Naples
South Plaza, and this is one of those plazas that really needs to be
upgraded. This is an opportunity we've been working on since before
July 15th, because I was here on July 15th -- or July 7th of 2015 when
the supplemental standards were adopted by this board.
So there have already been supplemental standards that have been
provided that we are under. I thank Ms. Toomajian for her comments
on behalf of the adjoining condominium association.
We've worked very, very hard with them, and if we are able to
proceed -- and, by the way, we have -- we've had, I think, four pre-app
hearings all before December 13.
And if we're able to proceed, we will hopefully have a very nice,
beautiful gas station, kind of gas station, and a facility, hopefully, by
Wawa. And they do have representatives here, by the way, today, and
we think that that will be the first step toward really being able to
financially and physically improve that plaza.
So we're -- I'm here to speak in favor of the motion. Mr. Bear is
here also from American Commercial Realty. But we're in favor of the
motion, and we -- you might want to take a look or have the County
Attorney take a look at the backdating of any ordinance to last month,
but I'll leave that up to you, because if that does not affect us, and I
January 10, 2017
Page 65
don't think it does, then that's really more your-all concern with regard
to somebody else.
So thank you very much for the motion, Mr. Saunders, and the
second, Commissioner Fiala, and we would ask that we be allowed to
proceed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. PRITT: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Fernandez. He'll
be followed by Patrick Vanasse, if I'm saying that right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Vanasse.
MR. MILLER: Vanasse, thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Good morning,
Commissioners. Michael Fernandez, both a landowner and also a
consultant to a number of properties that would be potentially affected
on the corridor.
We would suggest to you that the resources of the county are
better spent following and using those resources to accomplish the
study and to implement the study rather than to place a moratorium on
just four issues -- four specific uses.
In terms of -- I do want to point out that staff just told you there
was only five PUDs. There's actually additional ones; I'll name two.
One that's probably a book end. It was done in 1980, and it actually
supports self-storage today, and it's the Treetops PUD. It has vacant
property that's also zoned for self-storage as part of that PUD. It was
done in 1980 prior to the corridor studies that establish -- that got rid of
or tried to reduce the amount of commercial within that corridor.
And it has less restrictive standards. You can build up to a 100
feet there and lesser setbacks. So it certainly doesn't deserve, as PUDs,
to be excluded.
There's other PUDs that include the self-storage, the gas stations,
even pawn shops.
January 10, 2017
Page 66
The other one I'll mention is Price Street, which is the one that
was just approved the same day as the moratorium, and it includes gas
station. So PUDs in general have and support these uses, and they
should not be excluded.
But I believe really what we should be doing as a community is
putting our resources toward planning efforts and trying to get those
done as quickly as possible and not implementing a moratorium on
uses.
This moratorium, the 12-month period, I don't know if it's even
enough to address those four uses, but certainly not enough to address
issues that do require Growth Management Plan. And that time period
is driven by legal concerns. It's not driven by a schedule. We're going
to accomplish this by this date, this by this date.
Staff hasn't had the time or the ability to put together a schedule
upon which to structure a moratorium. And we would suggest that is
how you approach one, not say, okay, let's just do it. It's 12 months.
So our proposal is that you do rescind and utilize your resources
more carefully.
If I can continue, just a couple more minutes?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry. We have a lot of speakers,
but thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You still have a little time there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. I thought I heard something. We did
propose --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: When the button turns red.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. We did propose that the moratorium,
if implemented, would have certain exemptions. We agree with the
pre-application. But we also suggest to have -- there's a -- we believe a
more appropriate method, and that's an enhanced pre-application, that
would go to the hearing examiner, need not be advertised, and then
January 10, 2017
Page 67
you could extend, maybe for an additional 250, an additional two
weeks and get that compatibility review and, if exempted, then you can
go forward.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Vanasse has asked to cede his time to Rick
Baer, who will be your next speaker. He will have a total of six
minutes. Mr. Baer will be followed by Scott Gerard.
MR. BAER: Commissioners, thank you very much for the
opportunity to speak before you. My name is Rick Baer. I'm with
Naples South Realty Associates, and I assure you I'm not going to use
the six minutes.
Indeed, I wanted to mention and then say that none of them are
going to speak unless you raise questions that would be of their
particular interest.
I'm accompanied here today by Scott Gerard, who's the project
engineer for Wawa, who is the intended ultimate user for the
redevelopment at Naples South Plaza; Patrick Vanasse from RWA
here in Naples which is our lead engineering representative; and
George Kleier, who's the head of development for American
Commercial Reality and the person who has been working for the last
two years to shepherd the program together.
I wanted to begin by noting that there's probably nothing I could
say that could further summarize the intent of what we've tried to do
with the unscripted but beautiful words that Jane, our first speaker,
gave today when discussing the work which we've tried to do for the
last year and a half in working with the Pepperwood community to be
sure that before a final proposal was filed for redevelopment of this
property that it conformed to the wishes of our neighbors, which has
been a main part of what we did.
I last spoke before the Commission in the summer of 2015 as the
January 10, 2017
Page 68
new regulations for fuel servicing stations were being considered, and I
was strongly encouraged by a number of members of the Board to go
forthrightly forward to come up with a plan that would be better for the
community, would be fully cognizant of the new rules and regulations,
and return back in that regard.
And that's what we've made every effort to do. It wasn't a simple
process or an overnight process. The good folks at Wawa, which is a
family-owned business with some 700 convenience stores which
specializes in individually prepared sandwiches and beverages but
does also dispense fuel, have a number of norms that virtually every
one of their locations around the country follows, but they, over a
course of time, bent those standards or norms from their perspective to
conform to Collier County regulations.
The land developers made a number of concessions. We listened
to a number of concerns that our neighbors had to come up with a plan.
We participated in three pre-application meetings to the point that
Commissioner Saunders and Fiala have noted very wisely in the
amendment which is before you, which preceded today.
We did complete the formal application as the most recent step in
that process yesterday. I don't know if anybody else did it today, but
we did file yesterday. But I have a graphic I'm not going to pick up,
but of the four very large boxes of material. So this was no last-minute
preparation; it was the result of many, many meetings that got to that
point, including the fact that we were required by staff to work with the
-- with their people as well with the Florida Department of
Transportation because they have authority over U.S. 41, and I'm sure
that will be an element which will be, you know, taken into
consideration by Mr. Bosi in the other activities.
So we could not present until we had a plan that the state had
approved. And we now have that plan. That required further
modifications that Wawa and others had to consent to to comply with
January 10, 2017
Page 69
the state.
I had a long thing I'm going to skip about the history of the
property since we were involved in the numerous entities that have
been involved in working to redevelop it.
I want to leave you with the thought, because we'll have other
opportunities, I'm sure, to talk about the specifics of this application,
that it is the absolute intent of the ownership currently that the
application, which is before the county, is the first of a step process
which will occur rapidly based upon the hopeful building of the Wawa
facility for the redevelopment on this property of the outparcel facade
completely, as well as the rest of the property, that we completely
agree with Commissioner Fiala relative to the importance to get
merchants into the property.
So not only does Wawa sell a lot of -- food and beverages is their
main thing, but we searched the country, literally, to bring Sears and
Anthony's women's fashion apparel into the shopping center, and we
will continue to do so to provide a diversified shopping environment
for Collier County's residents and visitors.
So in conclusion, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. While
we would not see the need for a moratorium, we would endorse the
amendment that is proposed by Commissioner Saunders and Fiala as
the way to proceed if you do proceed with a motion, and we would be
available at any time for questions by anyone.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think you have a question here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just two quick things.
MR. BAER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First of all -- first of all, I already
thought they were approved. I didn't even think they were a part of
this, because they've been working at it so long. I've been writing
about it in my column and endorsing it. You know, it wasn't --
MR. BAER: Can you sign on one of these pages? I've got a lot of
January 10, 2017
Page 70
people here who would be very pleased if we could start turning dirt.
It was -- the process became so complicated for that that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We were wondering why, at the East
Naples Civic Association.
Second question is, it's going to be half of a shopping center,
right? They're going to just tear down the one side?
MR. BAER: We're only tearing down the southernmost building,
which is mostly vacant in any case. The building which includes
Sears, Dollar General, and Anthony, as well as around the corner on
Rattlesnake includes the UPS Store and Pizzeria and such --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're tearing down that one?
MR. BAER: -- that all stays. No, no, no. That all stays.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That will stay.
MR. BAER: That all stays.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what about that front -- now
you're going to tear down the one side, and then there's another
building out front.
MR. BAER: That's the building that we have users in line
contingent on Wawa's coming into the property, that we would
redevelop that building facade and then develop the facade of the
balance of the shopping center to bring everything up to speed to look
what we hope will be tremendous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BAER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Next speaker, please.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker -- Mr. Gerard has asked to
cede his time to Bruce Anderson, who will have six minutes, and Mr.
Anderson will be followed by Richard Yovanovich.
MR. OCHS: Again, if we could use both podiums to keep the
process moving, we'd appreciate it.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
January 10, 2017
Page 71
Bruce Anderson from the Cheffy Passidomo law firm, and I'm here on
behalf of the Wawa grocery store chain.
They have been working to enter the Naples market for the last
four years. They are not speaking in opposition, but they do want to
express concern.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's an alert that's going off
on everybody's phone right now, one of the Amber alerts or something.
So those people aren't really at fault.
MR. ANDERSON: I want to stress that we are not speaking in
opposition. We do want to express concern generally, though, about
another moratorium on businesses which have gas pumps.
There were new special compatibility standards that were adopted
after the first moratorium on service stations, and we don't think that
the moratorium should apply to any PUD that has been approved since
the compatibility standards, the special ones, were adopted, because if
you're in a PUD, you have been vetted on a site specific basis to
address compatibility concerns.
As I said, Wawa considers itself primarily a grocery store, and it
sells gas in order to get customers to the front door of the grocery
store. They support good planning, and they look forward to doing
business in Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're already approved, though,
aren't you, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We want to make sure that something
doesn't fall between the cracks with regard to existing PUDs,
especially those that were most recently approved. I represent one
property owner who the Wawa station was the selling point for the
PUD to get approved, and it got approved the same day that you gave
direction to move on the moratorium. And I believe that they would
January 10, 2017
Page 72
be exempt, but I do want to clarify that on the record.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final speaker on this item is
Richard Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich.
Fortunately, most of what I was going to say has already been
said. I agree that anybody who's had a pre-application meeting should
be exempt from this, and that's my understanding of every moratorium
you've ever adopted, the standard has been, if you've had the formal
pre-application meeting, a moratorium will not apply to you.
Second, I'm really concerned about commercial and mixed-use
PUDs that have gone through the review process for the adoption of
these specific uses within the PUD including recent compatibility
analyses that have been done for some of the PUDs. And Mr. Bosi can
speak to that effort in front of the Hearing Examiner.
There has always been a public review process for specific uses in
PUDs, and I could tell you for as long as I can remember, which I have
a pretty good memory, gas stations has always been one of those
trigger items in a PUD as a use that has been reviewed and approved or
not approved and specifically excluded from PUDs ever since I've
been doing this work in Collier County.
So there has been a detailed analysis for all PUDs. And, frankly,
there are more hurdles to go through, as Mr. Solis will know as a
member of the Planning Commission and now on the Board, and
you-all who are already sitting here, and Mr. Saunders will remember,
I believe there are probably 20-something hoops you've got to step
through to get a PUD approved. You only have to get four approved
for a conditional use, and all four of those are within the same
20-something you have to do for a PUD.
And PUDs are unique. PUDs are a contract between Collier
January 10, 2017
Page 73
County and the property owner. You go through a negotiation process.
The courts recognized those as contracts. And one side can't
unilaterally change the conditions of another. So to say to someone
who has a PUD, you have as a permitted use indoor self-storage and to
now say to that person who agreed to that condition and any other
conditions in the PUD, we're going to change the rules and make you
go through a conditional-use process to reanalyze what we already
analyzed as part of the PUD process, I think, is not proper.
So I would request that the board include an exemption for
approved PUDs that have -- I'm primarily here for indoor self-storage
-- include those specific uses as an exemption from this moratorium
because they've already been vetted. You've done the compatibility
analysis to adopt the PUD in the first place.
To now require them to go through another same compatibility
analysis is improper. And, frankly, most of these PUDs have been
through a recent amendment in front of the board: Courthouse
Shadows, by way of example, and other PUDs that have been
mentioned have been recently adopted. So why would you say that
that most recent analysis is not valid?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's my understanding, Mr. County
Attorney, that the PUDs are exempted.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That was not in the motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: That wasn't the motion, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Okay. That's fine.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why I'm concerned. The motion
maker specifically said PUDs are not exempt from the moratorium,
and I'm encouraging you to allow them to also be exempt.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So -- and, Commissioner
McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And this goes right back
around to my beginning statements with regard to this whole process,
January 10, 2017
Page 74
and that's the lack of specificity, the lack of understanding. If anybody
understood my comments at the beginning of this to say that I wanted
to include PUDs in this moratorium, let me, for the record, correct that.
I was simply stating the unfair advantage by excluding PUDs
from the moratorium for those that have hard zoning that are already
currently zoned. I was expressing my concern with regard to offering
an unfair advantage to one property over another.
And with that, it is my rationale for the rescission of the
moratorium with a proposition of directing staff to come back to us
with specific incentives that we can do to bring forward the types of
uses that the community's looking for.
We're already in the process of the corridor study. There are
things that our staff can do that can help incentivize the type of
developments that we want to see without the imposition of a
moratorium.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not in a corridor study.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're not in a corridor study, sir. We
are not in a corridor study.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So we have a motion on the
floor and a second. Does the motion maker want to withdraw the
motion to amend it?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I think the rationale for
including all of the zoning districts in that corridor for those uses is that
Commissioner Fiala has identified a problem, potential problem with
those uses. And even though there may have been some compatibility
analysis done at the time of approval of the PUD, we do have new
folks on the Board, and perhaps our view may be a little different than
in the past.
So this gives us an opportunity to make sure that if there's a gas
station in that corridor, it goes through a conditional-use process to
January 10, 2017
Page 75
make sure it's not going to be incompatible even though it may be in
the PUD.
So I think the motion is drawn narrowly to accommodate
Commissioner Fiala's concern about those four uses, and there's a very
limited amount of time for staff to make this happen.
And if there's a concern about a retroactive moratorium, then
perhaps the motion should be amended to reflect that the moratorium
starts today and only lasts 11 months so we're not into this argument
that maybe it lasted longer than that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well -- and this is completely up to the
Commission's discretion. I mean, you could pick any date you want to
commence the moratorium.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the December 13th is still
okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do it December 13th, yes, and we
can do, I guess, any pre-application done prior to that date would be
effective.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Well, that was the
original motion. I'll stay with that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And the seconder agrees with
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Let's take a vote. All those
in favor of the motion as stated, say aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
January 10, 2017
Page 76
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 3-2.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Well, now you have a problem.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because it has to be --
MR. KLATZKOW: Because you've got 3-2 in favor of the
moratorium, which is fine, but you're going to need four votes to
implement the land use. From a practical standpoint --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Fails.
MR. KLATZKOW: From a practical standpoint, you have an
issue in that you've got a moratorium for land use items that four of
you don't support.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, if I might just comment
on that, because I don't think we have a problem with that.
You have a moratorium that goes into effect. There's going to be a
report back from staff on a conditional-use process for these. There
may be a change of heart by one of the "no" votes on this to have those
additional standards.
So I don't think there's anything inconsistent with moving forward
with it. And maybe I'm looking at this incorrectly.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm just saying you may have a potential
problem here that you may have a moratorium that, at the end of the
day, a supermajority of you won't support.
Having said that, the moratorium has been voted on.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, therefore, we cannot, without
reconsidering it --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We cannot -- it stands as it stands.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, you can reconsider it right now if
you wanted but, otherwise, we're done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If we reconsidered it right now,
wouldn't there be a time lapse, or would there be a motion?
January 10, 2017
Page 77
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You can do it right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. I move that we reconsider
the moratorium motion that we passed at the last meeting; is that
correct? Is that the way --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it would be this one you just made.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that reconsideration
would be considered right now.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right now, yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yeah, the one we just made.
Because it would fail, would it not, because it's land use, because you
need four votes; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. You're not changing any -- you're
not changing any land use. So you --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I misunderstood.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- don't need the supermajority. What I'm
saying is that to change the LDC it's going to require four votes. And
unless there's a supermajority to implement Commissioner Saunders' --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- desire to change the conditional uses,
you've got a moratorium here that ultimately doesn't make much sense.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I don't understand. If all
you need is three votes for a moratorium --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we're not changing any land uses,
then --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, but you will be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we're not voting on that now,
are we?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. You can keep the
moratorium in place, but what I'm saying is when Mr. Bosi and staff
comes back to you in three months or six months or whatever it is with
January 10, 2017
Page 78
these new land use regulations, unless there's four of you supporting
that, it's going to fail.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it's a risk.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a risk, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's a risk. All right.
Commission, what would you like to do? Are we going to take a
look at it again, or -- I think we do have two speakers of the nays. So
Commissioner Solis -- oh, Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel was first.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This comes back around to the
process of clarity, specificity, and understanding of what we're doing
and what we're looking to implement as we're moving through this
process.
I by no means am not in support of my colleagues with regard to
the necessity, our necessity for proper planning going forward, but I
have terrible concerns with regard to the implementation of this
moratorium and the unintended consequences that are coming from
that by the takings that occur for people that are in the process in some
form or fashion.
We've had a few come to speak to us today that were made aware
of the existence of this moratorium, but there may well be others that
are out there that we haven't necessarily heard from yet.
I do support good planning. I do support incentivization, and I
would far rather see us look at incentivization methodologies in lieu of
the penalties that are incurred by the moratorium.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: My issue really stems from if the
concern was that in the PUDs -- at least in some of these PUDs that
there was a vetting under the supplemental standards that have been
imposed for certain ones of these uses, if the public vetting of the uses
January 10, 2017
Page 79
is really what the issue is, then I think some consideration needs to be
given to the ones that have already been through that. I mean, if that's
-- you know, and I think going back to, I think, where we started many
hours ago.
And so I think there has to be some consideration to PUDs that
have already been through the process, essentially, that we're
suggesting they need to go through.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, you heard
concerns of Commissioner Solis. Would you consider amending your
--
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If the will of the Board is to
rescind that prior motion, I can make the same motion with the
exception that PUDs would not be included in the moratorium. So I
think what the -- procedurally, you need a second to your motion to
reconsider.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Take a vote on that; take a
quick vote on that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then I'll make --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second your reconsideration
motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I've made a motion to
reconsider. There's a second on the floor. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
January 10, 2017
Page 80
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 4-1.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I'll make the same
motion as before, but we'll exempt from the moratorium existing PUDs
within that corridor.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second for the sake of --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- discussion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Would you like to discuss it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I just don't know -- I
don't know what we're talking about now. I don't know how this is
going to affect -- is this something that -- there's six PUDs, and I just
don't know what it's going to do, but I just want to see it pass so that
we can move forward and start to plan what we want to look like.
And if this -- if this is what it takes to get there -- and there were a
couple that had mentioned -- like, for instance, Bob Pritt, for instance, I
thought his thing was approved a long time ago. I didn't even think
that that was an issue.
You know, same with -- there was something -- one other one that
was talking about something that they had been approved. Oh, it was a
self-storage unit, I think they said. And, you know, if they've already
been through the process for years, you know, you don't want to stop
them. You just want to program what's going to be coming up now
and, you know, as soon as people see the cheap land -- and that's what
we have here, cheap land -- so they're going to buy it quickly to put
stuff on it before other people realize that there could be something
really beneficial to the surrounding community.
That's what I'm looking for, places that are beneficial to the
people who live there so they can work and play and shop at home
rather than having to travel out of the area. That's my whole point. But
January 10, 2017
Page 81
we want to make it look as nice as the other parts of the county. That's
what I'm trying to do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion on the
floor and a second. I'd like to take a vote. If no other discussion -- oh,
Commissioner McDaniel and then Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mr. Solis was first.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much for
watching that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll withdraw my --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, I would like to
echo what Ms. Fiala had to say with regard to our efforts, and I think
we've heard from several people that are involved in the process, the
efforts that have been done, the public information that has been
provided, the cooperative efforts of the developers as they're coming
along to enhance the property and work with the neighbors and folks
that are going to be impacted.
And I -- I have to say it again out loud: I believe that there is a
process that we can go through that does not necessitate the
moratorium, the unintended consequences of a moratorium, especially
with the lack of specificity, because interpretation, sometimes when it
comes from here and gets brought back to us, allows for discretion
there that I can't support the motion.
And it's no disrespect at all whatsoever. I'm well aware of what it
is the intended -- or what it is that you're looking to do; it's just I can't
support it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Throwing out a request for maybe
another amendment to a motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's make a deal.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Again, if the issue is whether
January 10, 2017
Page 82
or not these uses have been vetted under whatever supplemental
standards we have -- and I think those only -- there's supplemental
standards for not necessarily all of the uses that are at issue but some of
them.
MR. BOSI: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then I would agree that those issues
have been through the process, and the public has had an opportunity
to weigh in on that process.
So I would suggest that maybe an appropriate amendment to the
motion would be to exempt PUDs that have been through an
amendment process or an adoption process where these supplemental
standards have been vetted --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- or considered.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: With the permission of the
second, I'll make that amendment to the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So let me just ask a question.
Like, someone came up here and they said -- they were talking about
self-storage, and they have a height limit of 100 feet on that piece of
property, and they noted that it was right in front of a community. So
how does this motion change that? I mean, that's a pretty tall
self-storage unit, you know.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only thing that this
amendment will do at this point in time is for those four uses, there is a
moratorium effective December 13th for 12 months, and the
moratorium does not apply to any PUDs in which those uses have been
vetted with the new criteria that the Board adopted at some point in the
past -- I don't know what that point was -- and it does not apply to any
property owners that have gone through at least the first
pre-application process.
It has nothing to do with height; it has nothing to do with
January 10, 2017
Page 83
anything other than those uses in the areas that are not within PUDs
that have been subject to those new criteria.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So why don't we, just for the
sake of clarity, restate the motion if you would, please.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. The motion is to
approve the implementation of a moratorium effective December 13th
for a period of 12 months covering four uses: Gas stations, car washes,
pawn shops, and self-storage facilities, within the area -- study area
that has been identified by Commissioner Fiala. This moratorium does
not apply to any property owners that have gone through the
pre-application process. And we've heard about two of those: Mr.
Fernandez and Wawa.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: As of what date?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Prior to December 13, 2016.
This also does not apply to those uses within -- especially, you
know, the real reference is to gas stations, but does not apply to those
uses within PUDs that have gone through a process in which the new
gas station criteria have been applied to it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The only problem I have with that is
our staff had no criteria to go by, and because there were a limitations,
you know, they would approve a lot of those applications just because
there was nothing set down to say, well, you have to consider the
neighborhoods or you have to consider the people behind or so forth. I
mean, I just -- a 100 foot tall, that's 10 stories of self-storage unit.
That's pretty large.
And I'm thinking, geez, oh, man, you know. But if he's already
been through that unit -- I just don't know. I just -- it looks to me like
it's all going to hell in a handbasket, but I want to try and rescue
whatever I can. And you've been a great help, really. You've been a
great help.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the motion that is on
January 10, 2017
Page 84
the floor now is as far as the Commission is likely to go. If that's not
acceptable, then I'll ask to withdraw the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we had votes on that, right, or
--
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, we've not had a vote on
this. Commissioner Solis has indicated that he's concerned about
PUDs that have gone through an evaluation process in which the new
gas station criteria have been applied to it, so we're excepting those
from the moratorium.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if we went with the motion that
was approved with three votes, which is the one that you supported and
I supported, there is a risk that when we come back with the zoning
that we want it would fail.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In a year, right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, so it's a waste of time.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It doesn't include PUDs.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that moratorium has been
rescinded. So we don't have any moratorium on the floor right now.
There is none. The only thing you have right now is a motion, and I'm
asking to amend the motion to take into consideration the concern that
Mr. Solis has just raised which deals with the PUDs.
If that's not acceptable, then you don't have to accept the
amendment, but I'm going to vote against my own motion at that point.
So you have that choice.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And if I can, just to recap, okay, we
started out with a motion for a moratorium that exempted PUDs across
the board, and then there was a motion made that did not exempt any
of the PUDs regardless of what they had been through.
And as I understood the concern is that permitting more of these
uses in this area on commercially zoned property that haven't been
through a vetting process, just because it's a use as of right, doesn't
January 10, 2017
Page 85
allow the community to have some input into that.
So my intention is to try to craft a motion that addresses both of
those concerns; that PUDs that have been through a process where the
additional standards that the Board has adopted for gas stations -- is
there one for self-storage?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: Car washes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- car washes, those supplemental
standards that apply to the uses that we're talking about would be
exempt. That's -- I'm trying to take these things into consideration,
understanding what the concern is.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the motion that I think I'm
trying to get you to agree to an amendment to takes care of that
consideration.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you either accept that
amendment or not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll accept it. We can always go
back and reconsider it if we want to. We have another meeting to go.
But at this point in time, I will accept it just to see it moving on.
By the way, the place where they're going to build the car wash,
we needed a hotel, a boutique hotel there, and a car wash doesn't
answer the boutique hotel that we need desperately for the
pickleballers. Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The state that we're in right
now is as happy as I've been, with no moratorium, since this entire
discussion started.
Added to the fact that the lack of clarity, the capacity for
interpretation for me to understand the ramifications, the long-term
ramifications of the proposed motion -- again, this by no means is
January 10, 2017
Page 86
looking to undermine the intent of why this is brought forward. But I
think we have to actually take -- we really have to give consideration
to property rights, real property rights that are vested.
If there's a PUD out there that has a height limitation that's
approved and we don't have a conflicting or an underlying zoning
regulation that disallows a 100-foot limitation, they have the right to do
that whether we like it or not.
And I really, really would think that -- I don't want to be the Lone
Ranger up here, but we really need to take a hard look at why we're
implementing this; is there another way we can get there from here and
not suffer the unintended consequence.
On a personal level, when this moratorium came forward, I
supported it last month and thought I had a safety valve to protect
people that were already in the process in some form or fashion, and
our staff interpreted that simple -- my quote, "simple exemption
process," they interpreted that as a conditional use, which throws
people that are already necessarily approved back into another
approval process. So I have huge concerns with the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You were a speaker today, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have a question on process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, public comment's closed.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor, and we had a second. The
vote was 3-2, then we realized with County Attorney's direction that
that is probably not a place we want to leave this, and so that motion
was rescinded, and we have another motion on the floor which
basically includes PUDs and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It actually exempts them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, exempts them, excuse me.
Exempts them.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I think Commissioner Fiala
has seconded --
January 10, 2017
Page 87
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- accepted that as a second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: She did.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the effort is to
accommodate Commissioner Solis and his concern about PUDs that
have gone through a process where the new standards for car washes
and gas stations have been applied, so that is the motion. It's a very --
this will be a very narrow moratorium.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so I am going to call the question.
All those in favor of the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does the moratorium still affect
self-storage units?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, the four uses.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The four uses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Still the four uses.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm going to call the question. All
those in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The Lone Ranger.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're done.
Okay. We have very patient folks here, and we need to hear from
Heritage.
January 10, 2017
Page 88
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2017-08: RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 95-
74, THE NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE
ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 5.21± ACRES OF
LAND ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) TO NAPLES
HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD; BY REVISING
THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION; BY ADDING A RECREATION
AREA TO TRACT A; BY REVISING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN; BY
ADDING A TENNIS CENTER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND
A LANDSCAPE BUFFER EXHIBIT; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING
OF 563± ACRES, IS LOCATED SOUTH OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD AND WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN
SECTIONS 3, 4, 9 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO APPROVE
– FAILED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 9 on your
agenda this morning, advertised public hearings. We are going to hear
Items 9A, 9B, and 9C as one hearing voting on each one of those
separately. Each one of these items require ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members, and anyone participating in the
January 10, 2017
Page 89
hearing will need to be sworn in by the court reporter.
Madam Chair, I'll summarize briefly each item. Item 9A is a
recommendation to approve an ordinance that amends the Naples
Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development by
changing the zoning classification of an additional 57.21 plus-or-minus
acres of land currently zoned agricultural to become Naples Heritage
Golf and Country Club PUD and adding a tennis center conceptual site
plan and a landscape buffer;
Item 9B is a recommendation to approve a petition to vacate the
county and public interest in an approximately 100-foot-wide,
1,300-foot-long tract dedicated to the county for future right-of-way in
Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Phase I;
And 9C is a recommendation to vacate a portion of Tract C5, the
conservation area, and a portion of the 10-foot Collier County
conservation buffer easement within Tract C5 of that PUD.
So, Madam Chair, it would be appropriate at this time to take ex
parte from the Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have had
communication: Meetings, correspondence, emails, and calls
specifically with Mr. Huber; Mr. Kulbacki; Patrick Dorda (sic), past
and president of the -- past president of the Naples Heritage; along
with emails and correspondence and a meeting with Bob Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
This is 9A, B and C, again. I met with Bob Mulhere -- actually a
few times with Bob Mulhere; Patrick Dorbad with Hole Montes; I've
had phone calls and meetings with Joe Huber and other residents; lots
of emails from them as well; I met with Patrick again. Well, so I've
January 10, 2017
Page 90
met with him a couple times; association president, David Beiser, I
believe, is his name; and past association president Dick Rogan; I've
had emails and letters from residents; spoken with residents on the
phone; conversations with members of the CCPC; one-way
communication with Commissioner Henning, and here is my file.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I've had meetings with the
various residents of Colonial Court, Mr. Huber and Mrs. Huber, Mr.
Case, Walt Kulbacki, Pamela Elder, and I received a letter from Jeff
Wright as well. I've reviewed the staff reports and received emails
from the residents at Colonial Court and also Richard Rogan and Bob
Mulhere.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chair, my
disclosure is essentially the same as Commissioner Solis' in terms of
all those communications.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And my disclosure is similar to
everyone up here: Numerous meeting this week, correspondence both
from Patrick Dorbad, Bob Mulhere, also with the residents on Colonial
Court, Joe Huber, and the neighbors, letter from Jeff Wright. I think
that pretty much sums it up. It's very well done.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, it will be appropriate for you to ask
the court reporter now to swear in anyone who's going to give
testimony.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, thank you very much.
And if you would swear in those who are giving -- if you're going
to give testimony, please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
All right. Thank you for your patience. Good morning.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning, Madam Chair, and
congratulations on your new position and --
January 10, 2017
Page 91
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: -- I'd like to just take one moment to say thank
you to Commissioner Fiala for her leadership over the last year and the
last 16 years; thank you.
For the record, my name is Bob Mulhere. I'm here representing
the applicant this morning; it's still morning.
With me this morning, Patrick Dorbad, who is the CEO of Naples
Heritage, and also Dave Beiser, who is the current president. There's
also a contingency of residents from Naples Heritage here. And Rich
Yovanovich is the land use attorney with me, Craig Smith is the
ecologist, and Gina Green is our civil engineer.
On the visualizer there's an aerial. It's a little bit hard to see but
the -- the subject property is outlined in red. And the five-acre piece
that we propose to add to the PUD is located right here.
I'll put the portion of the PUD master plan that focuses on that
portion of the PUD on the visualizer. And, again, it's this piece right
here.
A little bit of history. The Naples Heritage Homeowners
Association purchased that property in 2004, 12 years ago now, and
they purchased it for a couple of reasons: The primary reason was that
there had been -- they had been approached by a potential developer
who was going to acquire that piece and several other pieces and was
asking for permission to access that piece, if it were to be approved for
development -- it's zoned ag -- through the Naples Heritage PUD
Country Club.
And they declined that, and that particular opportunity went
away. But they -- the owner of this five-acre piece immediately
adjacent to them approached them, offered to sell it to them, and they
thought, we better purchase this. We can ensure we have that buffer.
Immediately after they purchased that piece, they began to have
discussions on what they could use that property for, in addition to,
January 10, 2017
Page 92
obviously, not having it developed immediately adjacent to their
border with residential development.
And almost immediately there were discussions about
recreational uses, including, specifically, tennis.
Time went by, and the parking in and around the clubhouse has
become an issue of paramount concern. They actually received a letter
from the fire marshal indicating that they had to address this issue,
particularly during the four or five months during season when things
are really busy.
And so then they began in earnest to look at the issue of
potentially relocating some use in the clubhouse area so they could
create more parking.
And so Gina Green and Craig Smith have been working on this
project a lot longer than I have, several years, and they have been
working through the South Florida Water Management and Army
Corps permitting process.
As part of that process, you are required to go through a
three-step process. The first thing is to avoid any impacts to wetlands;
the second thing is, if you can't avoid them, to minimize those impacts;
and the third is to mitigate for any impacts that you can neither avoid
nor minimize.
As part of that process, you're required to do an analysis of
alternative sites. And this was done -- and I will ask Craig to come up
and speak to this issue in just a few minutes. I believe 16 sites,
possible sites were evaluated. Three of them were within the Naples
Heritage Country Club property. I think the balance were in and
around the property.
That 16 was narrowed down to three potential sites. And through
discussions with the Corps and the South Florida Water Management
District, including even as recently as emails received yesterday, it was
clear that we would not be able to permit alternatives other than this
January 10, 2017
Page 93
additional five-acre piece which has uplands in it, because the other
pieces were already protected through a conservation easement and
had well maintained, viably functioning high-quality wetlands on
them.
And so at that point, when we realized that we would not be able
to permit any alternative location, we began to, in earnest, design the
five-acre parcel for the tennis center, and then where the tennis courts
are today would be converted to parking.
We went to the Planning Commission in May of last year, and at
that time that we went to the Planning Commission, this was the design
for that five-acre parcel. And you can see that there was access here.
This cul-de-sac is Colonial Court. There are six single-family home
lots on Colonial Court, and they are obviously the closest and most
affected with our proposal.
There is a 25-foot conservation easement that runs north and
south here that is a companion item to this petition, which we would
vacate, and there is also a right-of-way easement that's no longer
needed down here that we would vacate. The net gain is considerably
more conservation area than what exists today, and the PUD already
has considerably more conservation area than they are required by our
code.
So we went to the Planning Commission -- really, I certainly was
unaware of any specific concerns that these residents had at that time.
Those came to light both at and immediately after that initial Planning
Commission. And I then, in discussions with my client, said, we've
got to try to address the concerns that the residents on Colonial Court
have.
We were scheduled -- and we began a set of iterations back and
forth on how we could address those emails and meetings, and we
incorporated some conditions in place. For example, one concern was
that the PUD language that I had written was very flexible and allowed
January 10, 2017
Page 94
for other potential uses other than just the tennis center and, you know,
the restrooms and those kinds of things. It allowed a snack bar; it
could have been pickleball courts. Once I heard these concerns, we
revised that language to limit it to only those uses that were reflected
on the site plan.
We had a number of conditions in place when we went -- after we
went to the Planning Commission that were not in place prior to going
to the Planning Commission. So when we were scheduled to go to the
Board, at that time Commissioner Henning suggested that we should
go back to the Planning Commission because of the changes in the site
plan.
And so we agreed, and we went back to the Planning Commission
for a second hearing. At both of those hearings we received
unanimous approval from the Planning Commission; however, in
between the first hearing and the second hearing, we revised the site
plan -- we revised the site plan to address specific concerns that some
of the residents of Colonial Court raised, including -- some of these
were in an email that I received from Mr. Huber, who I believe was
working with other residents there, Mr. Kulbacki and other residents,
and they can speak for themselves.
But -- so one of the comments that was made was not that they
supported it, but if it were to be approved, there should at least be
150-foot separation from the property line to the tennis courts. And so
we went back and redesigned it, as you can see from the first scenario
where those tennis courts were closer, to this scenario, which does
provide 152-foot setback from Mr. Huber's property line to the closest
point of the tennis court, and that is now the closest point of
relationship between those two. Everything else is further away.
We also are maintaining natural areas now here because of this
new design that gave us an opportunity to maintain more natural areas,
here and here, and this, of course, will be in conservation, this portion
January 10, 2017
Page 95
of the five-acre project. So we have a considerable separation now that
did not exist before.
At our second -- oh, by the way, I just want to put up this
landscape exhibit. We are also proposing to plant an enhanced
25-foot-wide landscape buffer in addition to the natural areas that will
provide a very substantial buffer between the tennis courts and
Colonial Court properties.
At the second Planning Commission hearing, there were a
number of specific conditions put on the project that we agreed to and
that are now incorporated into the ordinance that you have before you
for consideration. As I said, we redesigned the tennis courts to be at
least 150 feet. We've limited the uses to only tennis courts, restrooms,
storage space, roofed and unroofed seating areas. We reduced the
height of the building to one story.
We expressly prohibit night play. The hours of operation that
were mandated by the Planning Commission as a recommendation
were 7 a.m. to sunset. We agreed with that condition.
We have prohibited amplified sound. We will have no lighting.
Since there's no night play, we will have no night lighting other than
security lighting which is limited to bollard style as may be necessary
for the public safety and limited to a maximum of four feet in height.
The tennis courts are required to be constructed of hard true clay
or some comparable material because that is softer in terms of sound.
There was a question raised about special events and parking on
the right-of-way. These special events are not like super large special
events. They're when there's interplay from other clubs where there's a
tennis tournament that goes on; however -- and so we don't think there
would be a great deal of traffic there in any case; however, we agreed
to a stipulation which says when special events such as member guest
tournaments are scheduled at the tennis center, in order to minimize
any parking demand at the center, parking shall be provided to the
January 10, 2017
Page 96
clubhouse and a shuttle shall be utilized to transport players and
spectators from the clubhouse to the parking area by the tennis center.
And then, I think -- and this is probably one of the most
significant conditions. All of those together we agreed to so as to
minimize the impacts on these residents, and I should say we
understand that everybody -- these are all neighbors. Everybody lives
together in the same community. And it's a beautiful community. If
you've not been there, it's a really beautiful community.
So the idea here is to do everything that we could do that's
reasonable to address their concerns. The community itself did, in
significant majority, recommend approval for the construction of this
tennis -- and relocation of this tennis facility at this location.
As I said, the process has been on for quite a few years, and
several hundred thousand dollars has been spent already just to get us
to this point.
The last comment I wanted to make, before I ask Craig to come
up and talk about the alternative selection process, is the other
condition that was placed on us reads as follows: Within the areas
labeled "natural area" on the PUD master plan, which is here and here
and here -- let's see -- existing vegetation shall be retained to the
greatest degree possible after removal of any exotic vegetation. In the
event that existing vegetation dies, it shall be replaced with the same or
comparable plant type and shall be replanted in the future as needed.
So there's no limit on the time frame for the obligation to maintain that
vegetated area.
I think that concludes my presentation. If I've forgotten anything,
I'll speak to my clients while I ask Craig Smith to come up and give
you just a short presentation on that alternative selection process,
because we know that a lot of issues have been raised with that in why
we didn't select one location versus another location.
Craig, you want to come up?
January 10, 2017
Page 97
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Craig Smith. I work with W. Dexter Bender & Associates
up in Fort Myers. I'm an environmental consultant and have been an
environmental consultant in the Southwest Florida since 1987.
When Patrick first came to me concerning this project, his
overriding goal was, as Bob said, to address parking at the clubhouse.
There is a substantial need for parking in that location. Obviously, if
we're going to provide additional parking, it has to be at the clubhouse
and not at some distant location, say, out adjacent to 951 or some other
portion of the site.
To do that you can either build the new parking within the
existing development footprint, or you can build the parking
immediately adjacent to the existing parking lot. If you go into the
woods immediately adjacent to the parking lot, you're into preserved
wetlands that have been used as mitigation for the project.
If you build the parking in the development area, then you need to
either decide you're not going to have whatever use you're turning into
parking, or you have to relocate that use somewhere else.
It was agreed that the logical choice was that the tennis courts
would be the easiest use to relocate to some other portion of the
project.
Having said that, we had a pre-application meeting with both the
Corps and the District back in 2012, and we actually showed them a
concept which would be to relocate the tennis courts from their current
location so as to provide additional parking where the tennis courts
currently are over to an area immediately adjacent to the driving range.
That was their first preference.
The area where it would be relocated to next to the driving range
is all wetland. It's within conservation easements and was used as
mitigation for the original Naples Heritage permit.
Both agencies expressed some skepticism, and the Corps
January 10, 2017
Page 98
specifically said, if you have any chance at all of doing that, which
they didn't think was much, we would have to document there was
absolutely no upland alternatives available to us other than using that
entire wetland site.
So I, with the assistance of Patrick and Gina, prepared -- started to
work on an alternatives analysis. One thing that is salient that
happened between the time we submitted our permit application in that
pre-application meeting is I was working on almost an identical
process for a project known as Quail West. That's also an older
development that was permitted back in the late '80s, early '90s. They
needed more parking at their clubhouse, and they were proposing to do
almost the exact same thing, which was to relocate their tennis courts
into a much smaller isolated wetland mitigation area in order to put
parking where the tennis courts currently were.
After about a year of that process, the Corps said no. We refuse
to even evaluate your proposal to us. They did not ask me questions
about my alternative sites analysis. They did not ask about
minimization, mitigation, project need.
So the Corps has very specific guidance in place right now on
how an alternatives analysis is to be prepared. It's summarized in a
current document dated June 2014. So I went ahead and prepared an
alternatives analysis based on those guidelines.
And the process is, basically, you look for sites that are
potentially practicable; in other words, sites that could be undertaken
and meet the project purpose, which is to provide additional parking,
and then once you have identified potentially practicable sites, you
look at the environmental impacts of those sites.
So we looked at a total of 16 sites, of which six are located on site
and nine were even on parcels that immediately abutted Naples
Heritage, to look to the north, south, east, and west to see if there was
any land available that we could use.
January 10, 2017
Page 99
I've got a number of tables which I won't bore you with. Just a
quick summary of them is sites that turned out to be non-practicable,
those are the criteria we looked at. We analyzed those, determined
them not to be practicable. So those sites all fell out after the first step
of the evaluation.
The second step of the evaluation is then to look at sites that are
determined to be practicable alternatives and look at the environmental
impact of those sites. None of the sites had any significant
listed-species issues, so it basically came down to looking at wetland
impacts, and the guidance specifically says when you look at wetland
impacts, you look at not only the acreages but the quality of the
wetlands that are to be impacted.
And we did that for three different sites. We came up with
conceptual site plans. This is a site plan that was done for the driving
range site or what's termed the driving range site. And you can see it
had significantly more wetland impact than the proposed site.
In addition, those wetlands are all very high quality. They've
been used as mitigation. They've had exotics taken out and been
maintained for 15, 20 years.
This alternatives analysis has been submitted both to the Army
Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District.
Both agencies have been on site. They have looked at the proposed
site, they have looked at the driving range site, and they have looked at
the site immediately adjacent to the existing parking lot. Both agencies
have stated on several occasions that they agree with the methodology
of the analysis, they agree with the findings of the analysis, and they
agree that the site we selected is the one that their regulations require
us to go forward with.
As a followup, I just circled back with the Army Corps of
Engineers to make sure there was no misunderstanding on my part that
they were somehow considering the driving range as a viable
January 10, 2017
Page 100
alternative, and I have been told that is not the case.
One thing that has been happening in recent years -- this is a
special condition out of a Corps permit that was issued last year, and if
you were to look at the last sentence of that special condition, it
basically says, for the avoided wetlands; in other words, the wetlands
that you did not impact during your initial permitting process and the
ones that you used as mitigation, the Corps reserves the right to deny to
even look at your application much less review it in detail and
determine whether it meets their criteria.
That goes back to this fact sheet that also supports that same
concept that basically says, if it's a mitigation area -- if you avoided it
the first time, do not come back and ask us a second time to impact
that area.
I've also reached out recently to the Water Management District
just to confirm that they, too, still believe that the proposed site is the
appropriate site and that they agree with the alternatives analysis.
And I'd like to read part of an email I received from Laura
Layman, who is the head of the environmental section of the Water
Management District, and it says: As part of the review of this
application, we agree with your assessment that proposed site, Site 6, is
the most appropriate location for the project. Site 6 location minimizes
environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. It is unlikely the
District would approve the tennis court in any of the other conservation
easements on site, as they are being -- as they are to be maintained in a
natural state in perpetuity and serve as mitigation for areas for the
project.
So if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them now or
later.
MR. MULHERE: So that really concludes our presentation. I
know you will have questions. I know there's a lot of members of the
public who wish to speak, and I'd just like to reserve the opportunity to
January 10, 2017
Page 101
come back up and address any comments or questions that we feel we
should.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Any questions, Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Let's hear from the public. How
many speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have 15 speakers. Most of
them have ceded time to two speakers. First up, Joseph Huber, who
has been ceded time from six additional people for a total of 21
minutes.
Walter Kulbacki, are you present, sir?
MR. KULBACKI: I ceded my time.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. I just need you to raise your hand when I
call your name to know that you're here.
Tom Leonard?
MR. LEONARD: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Barbara Huber?
MS. HUBER: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Leon Case?
MR. CASE: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Pam Elder?
MS. ELDER: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: And, Barbara Case?
MS. CASE: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: They have all ceded their time to Mr. Huber. If
you'll come up to this podium right here. He'll have 21 minutes. Oh,
I'm sorry. He needs the other podium for the visualizer. Mr. Huber
will be followed by R.M. Rogan.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Ochs, we can assist Mr. Huber so
he can speak and --
MR. OCHS: Absolutely.
January 10, 2017
Page 102
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- have someone help him with his
audiovisuals, or his visuals, I guess.
MR. HUBER: Before I get started, I have prepared sort of an
overview of my comments, which I would like to present with your
permission, Madam Chair, to the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's fine.
MR. HUBER: It includes some of the material I'll be discussing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, that's fine. Just, on the record,
please state your name.
MR. HUBER: The name is Joseph Huber.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Does the Board have any objection to this?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: By no means.
(No response.)
MR. HUBER: Okay. As I stated, my name is Joseph Huber. I
am here on behalf of the residents of Colonial Court. We've been
opposed to the location of the tennis courts from its very inception.
As you can see, what I put on the visualizer here shows sort of an
overview, an aerial view of Colonial Court. Colonial Court is the only
single -- only cul-de-sac in the single-family residence of Naples
Heritage Golf and Country Club. It's part of a separate association
called Cypress Point, which is a single-family residence.
You can see by looking at the visualizer that the total property,
including the five acres that are proposed to be incorporated in here, is
totally surrounded by natural vegetation. The area behind our house
and to -- behind our house is a preserve under the PUD, and the
property to the left is currently -- which was testified earlier was
acquired in 2002, correctly this time, as to why it was acquired, for the
purpose of preventing development of that area, yet our own club is
deciding to develop and locate tennis courts across from our
neighborhood.
January 10, 2017
Page 103
When we purchased this property, my wife and I were one of the
first people to buy on Naples Heritage, and there's only two original
owners. When we purchased this property, we were told that it would
remain as such, that there -- that it would be in preserve. We liked the
quiet enjoyment of that neighborhood, the look it had, and that's why
we decided to build there.
My wife was raised on a farm. She liked the fact that it was
separate and secure. And all of the people that bought there bought for
the same reason initially: They liked the neighborhood, and that's what
they bargained for.
Mr. Case, who is here today -- all of us paid a premium for the
property there. There was a $10,000 additional cost for the site, which
we paid at the time to have this particular location, and yet this
proposal is designed to take that away from us.
I'm sure that a lot of the residents who bought at Naples Heritage
-- if you bought a house on a golf course and you wanted a golf course
view and they decided to change and close the golf course, I think
you'd be upset. If you bought a house that was on a lake view and they
decided to drain the lake and not use it as a lake anymore, I think you'd
be pretty upset. That's what we are concerned about here.
This is the inappropriate place to put tennis courts. This is 1.6
miles from the existing tennis facility.
Now, Mr. Smith testified about the report. The report was
produced for the Army Corps of Engineers. They require that you do
an alternative analysis.
You're going to hear testimony today from an expert, because we
were criticized at the Planning Commission meeting because we had
no expert testimony. So we hired an engineer, an engineer who does
this kind of work, to go through the alternative analysis report, okay.
And you'll see his conclusion is that the plot is -- the report is flawed
and deficient in many respects.
January 10, 2017
Page 104
Issues were raised at the Planning Commission meeting by Joe
Schmitt, who's a former Army Corps of Engineers in the Savannah
district. He questioned it. He basically said the report is garbage.
Now, I spoke to -- obviously, we're having two difference
conversations with the Army Corps of Engineers. I've had
correspondence with Steve Fleming. I've talked with him. I talked to
Mr. Toois (phonetic) from the Army Corps of Engineers, and they
have informed me that they would consider alternative uses for
alternative sites for the property. It has never been proposed to them,
this thing that they informally had some discussions, but there's never
been an application filed with the Army Corps of Engineers, and I have
that in writing from them, nor has it ever -- was flawed with -- the
information that you're hearing here is what we're forgetting here, is
that this five acres, plus the right-of-way that you're seeing here, which
is an additional, approximately -- I think it comes to around eight
acres, if I'm not mistaken, total that they propose to use here could be
used as a bargaining chip to work with the Army Corps of Engineers
and make this a conserve, make it a conservation area, clean up the
area and make it used for that purpose. That option has never been
presented to the Army Corps of Engineers to my knowledge.
So the whole process, in our view, is flawed and deficient. And
you'll hear from Mr. Mike Ramsey, who's our engineer, who will
basically say that the alternative sites, the one next to the driving range,
the one next to the west of the parking lot, are viable, practical
alternatives. They are environmentally sound. He'll testify that moving
something 10 feet one direction or another can change the numbers.
I'm not an expert. I'm not an engineer. That's why we hired him,
because we wanted to get -- we believed that there was no active
pursuit of this location.
The alternative analysis report that you heard testimony on today
was submitted and prepared in April of 2016. The vote on this
January 10, 2017
Page 105
location and the campus enhancement plan was in March. So the
decision was already made as to where this was going to go. It's just
bootstrapping. They used the report to justify this particular location.
Okay. You know, this is certainly inconsistent with what the plan
was. This will have a negative impact on our residential environment.
It's going to destroy -- converting the land in this five-acre site will
destroy what is now wooded area and could be a preserve and a
conservation area.
As I mentioned, we paid a premium. It's going to change the
cul-de-sac that we live on. It was not designed to accommodate a lot
of traffic. It's designed for six homes. It's a narrow road. It's not as
wide as Naples Heritage Drive. There are no sidewalks there. People
walk down this street and jog on our street, ride their bicycles on our
street. Now we're going to have traffic going to a tennis center every
day that's going to interfere with that. It's going to create safety issues,
in our view, and certainly destroy our environment.
The entrance will be directly adjacent between the second and
third home, is where they propose it to be, into the tennis facility.
I ask and I include in here -- some of the legal considerations, at
least that I got from the staff, basically, in terms of what you need to
consider as a board, is the suitability of the area for the type and pattern
of development proposed. I think I already answered that question. It
doesn't belong here. This is a residential area, and it has been from its
inception. You're taking that away from us if you allow the placement
of the tennis courts here.
Will the proposed change adversely influence the living
conditions in the neighborhood? I think the answer to that is clearly
yes based on comments.
Will the proposed change create drainage problems? You'll hear
from Mike Ramsey talking about how the impervious tennis courts
will create not only water problems but also water problems for
January 10, 2017
Page 106
adjoining property owners.
Will the proposed change adversely affect the values of the
adjacent area? We believe that it will negatively impact because you're
taking away the whole reason people bought there. I can't tell you how
many times people have walked down our street and I'm working in
the yard, and they come to me and say, oh, this is a beautiful location.
We wish we had bought here. A couple people offered to buy the
property over the years.
And whether it is impossible to find other sites. Their claim is it
is impossible, but how do you know unless you make effort? No one
has done -- made the effort here. If you look at the original proposal
from the PUD, which I just pulled out the other day, there is a section
that's located -- and let me get the map out here so I can show it to you.
On some of the maps, on the original map -- and it's too small for
me to show it to you here. This area here is designated in the original
documents that were filed in this matter as Tract B. The original
developers envisioned this to be used for recreational purposes. It says
it right in the -- in the document itself. It refers to Tract B, and it says
it will go under a separate development plan.
Tract B, they envision -- there's a lake there, or -- I haven't been
back there, so I don't know if the lake is there, but they envisioned a
lake. They said passive recreational area, but what I'm -- the point is,
there's seven acres there plus the adjoining property that was intended
by the original developers to go through the planning process to be
used for future reference, yet they chose not to do that. There even is a
road that's mentioned in the PUD documents that could go to that
location.
So you're a quasi-judicial body. We ask you to give this matter
consideration. We ask you to not approve this, let them go back to the
drawing board, explore the other locations, and give us an opportunity
to preserve the neighborhood we paid for, we chose, and we want it to
January 10, 2017
Page 107
remain that same.
The six residents -- and it's not just us. The other people that live
close proximity on Naples Heritage Drive feel the same way we do. It
does not belong there. If you thought about it, it makes no common
sense to put a tennis facility 1.6 miles away from the clubhouse where
it really belongs. They need to go back to the drawing board and seek
another location.
Again, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate the
opportunity to state our case. You know, it's like -- as I told a number
of people, it's like fighting city hall. We had to spend a lot of money --
personally had to spend a lot of money to hire lawyers.
There is one other issue that I didn't mention, and that is the
vacation. There's an easement that needs to be vacated, the
conservation easement that runs along the property. All of the
residents filed objections to that.
Some of you received a letter from Jeff Wright from Goede, his
firm and, basically, his interpretation is that the vacation should be null
and void based on the clear language of the -- of the matter.
I'll leave that to the attorneys to argue about, but we feel that's an
additional reason you need to reject this proposal. Again, thank you
very much for your time and your patience in hearing our side of the
story.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I had transposed, I'm sorry, the
next speaker. The next speaker should be Michael Ramsey, who has
been ceded three additional minutes from Edith Morrison. Ms.
Morrison, are you --
MS. MORRISON: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: There you go. So Mr. Ramsey will have six
minutes to speak and then will be followed by Mr. R.M. Rogan.
MR. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
January 10, 2017
Page 108
Michael Ramsey. I am president of Ramsey, Inc., Environmental
Ecological Consulting, and I am here today representing the five
single-family home residents on Colonial Court in Naples Heritage.
I was asked by those five residents on Colonial Court to help
them assess and evaluate the alternatives that were being presented to
them in regards to the proposed amendment here and specifically into
moving the six tennis courts from the current clubhouse location to the
five acres beside them.
I don't know if that's on there, but -- okay.
This is kind of a quick and dirty shot of Naples Heritage. One of
the interesting things about Naples Heritage is the way it's currently
laid out. It has some pretty good community quality parameters in it.
And we wanted to look at those characteristics and also some of the
other characteristics that make this community.
This community here, you come in the gate off Davis, and the
clubhouse is here kind of where it says CC. For brevity, the three sites
that were selected as practicable is 6, the five acres -- the five acres
beside Colonial Court; 10, west of the country club parking lot; and 13,
west of the current wet driving range for golf club -- or golfing.
After reviewing the information in the land and discussing it with
my clients and looking around the property, based on my experience, I
think, in my opinion, that with work and applying data to this issue,
that Alternative Sites 10 and 13, used either separately or together,
would be a better choice than the choices presented, and utilizing Site
6 as a mitigation site offsite for this.
This would -- by using Sites 10 and/or 13 for the primary site to
relocate the tennis courts, this would further promote the green
concepts for a community. Number one, as you can see, the country
club is at a central location coming into the subdivision, so the high
traffic density goes from the gate to there, and it's very short.
If you move to Location No. 6 down south, you would get about
January 10, 2017
Page 109
1.6-mile travel. There are 96 houses between the clubhouse and there
that you would probably have at least a minimum of 100 round trips or
more per day, probably even more because of events that they
sometimes hold.
I can't be accurate on that information. I don't believe they did a
traffic study. That would be very helpful to have that information.
Next, by reducing just the traffic and the trips, you would be
reducing exhaust gases. The second thing, it would be less noise, and
those are pretty important to a community.
Second, the current road design, as I said, takes most of the traffic
and comes from the gate and goes to the current clubhouse. This is a
pretty good design. I don't know why that would want to be changed
to affect the current community quality parameters they have now.
Third, if you use 10 or 13 as sites, you will reduce the impervious
surface if you coordinate and use the current clubhouse facilities and
parking lot. You can reduce stormwater discharge, and this is an
important issue in the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, or
LASIP. This area's going to have a lot of issue with water/stormwater
discharge, and I'm not sure that was looked at too closely.
Third, also, if you reduce the stormwater discharge and you move
it to 10 or 13, it has further linear area to go through before it
discharges to the south, improving water quality.
Fourth, utilizing 10 or 13 would just reduce the volume in
particular for that issue.
Now, on the mitigation issue, I've dealt with the mitigation
agencies, and I understand they are difficult and are very hard to deal
with sometimes. They try to push you backwards more then they will
let you push forward with that.
I find that the habitat that's on Area 6 offers a unique opportunity
to do both wetland improvement and upland habitat improvement.
Now, on that issue, I find very few instances where I can improve
January 10, 2017
Page 110
upland habitat, because that's the most disappearing habitat in the
community. This offers an opportunity to put a buffer beside the
community and remove the issue of ever developing it and increasing
upland habitat, specifically slash pine.
And, last, I believe that using Sites 10 and 13, if you look at the
traffic patterns, it probably has a lot better emergency vehicle access
than it would down on the end of Colonial Court.
And one other thing I was noticing in the reviews, I noticed that I
didn't see much accounting or evaluation or calculation of the
cumulative value of the FEMA floodplain calculation, how much this
would add to that in the LASIP area. That's been a big issue, and it's
going to be a big issue in the LASIP area.
That's all I have. Hope it was quick and to the point. Thank you,
sir; thank you, ma'am.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is R.M. Rogan, and Mr.
Rogan has been ceded time by five additional speakers. If --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd ask -- Rich Yovanovich, for the
record. I represent Naples Heritage. And I'd asked the county --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Ramsey, excuse me. I need -- you
probably need to stay for a moment. And then I also failed to ask you,
were you sworn in? I know --
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, thank you. So you probably
need to stay in the room, because I think you're going to be --
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you -- yes. I asked the County
Attorney to verify that I am allowed to ask a few questions of Mr.
Ramsey since he is testifying as an expert in these matters. I just have
a few quick questions for him if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Ramsey, you're going to come to
the podium, please.
MR. RAMSEY: Oh.
January 10, 2017
Page 111
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Ramsey, just a couple of questions.
You're aware that we will have to go through Water Management
District permitting to address any of the water management impacts
you've testified to, correct?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So there will be specific agencies that
will review impacts of the water that's generated from this site both on
site and offsite, both for a quality and a quantity perspective, correct?
MR. RAMSEY: That is correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So your concerns about what may not
have been addressed at this point will, in fact, be addressed through
proper agency permitting, correct?
MS. RAMSEY: May I elaborate?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess the answer is yes, and then, of
course, you can elaborate.
MR. RAMSEY: Yes. My point in the information I brought was
that based on the alternatives presented and the data brought with it,
there would be different levels of results. Yes, they will be evaluated.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And they will not be issued a permit if
they do not meet the applicable criteria, correct?
MR. RAMSEY: That's correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, with regard to alternative site
analysis, have you done any real detailed site analysis to opine that we
could simply go to one of the other alternative sites and use Area 6, I
believe you testified to, as mitigation for those impacts?
MR. RAMSEY: Based on the information presented from Naples
Heritage for this issue that I went through and reviewed, there were
some other sites that could have been evaluated, but the data was not
there to do a full analysis.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it your opinion to this board today that
January 10, 2017
Page 112
the only thing Naples Heritage needs to do is go to the Army Corps of
Engineers and offer up Area 6 as mitigation for the other two sites you
referred to in your testimony?
MR. RAMSEY: That would be an alternative, yes, that has not
been pursued to detail.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm asking you right now, do you
believe that you, if we hired you to permit this project, would be able
to get the impacts to implement the proposed plan adjacent to the
clubhouse and the sole mitigation will be, we'll give you Area 6 with
some improvements as the mitigation?
MR. RAMSEY: My opinion is that offering up an alternative
utilizing Section 6 in working through the proposal, yes, you might be
able to get it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That was a little qualified. But
how much would we need to pay you to take us through that process to
figure out whether or not that might -- may occur?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that's out of line, sir.
MR. RAMSEY: I'm going to hold right there. I'm not going to
answer that question, because I'm already representing some people,
and I'm trying to be scientifically honest to the best of my knowledge.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I'm trying to figure out is what
it would take to get through the process.
MR. RAMSEY: I don't have enough data to make that
assessment.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know this is a passionate issue. I
know you've been here since 9 o'clock this morning, but please keep
your remarks quiet. Please, we don't need to hear this. Let's keep order
in here. We'll get through this.
Thank you very much, Mr. Ramsey, but I probably wouldn't leave
yet.
January 10, 2017
Page 113
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is R.M. Rogan.
He has been ceded time. And when I call your name, please indicate
you're here by raising your hand.
Peter Lombardi?
MR. LOMBARDI: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Ken Gaynor?
MR. GAYNOR: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Mary Anne -- Mary Anne Dunbar? I'm sorry.
MS. DUNBAR: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Richard Dashnaw?
MR. DASHNAW: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: And Cathleen (sic) Duggan?
MS. DUGGAN: (Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: That is a total of 18 minutes. And this is your last
speaker on this item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. ROGAN: I sent a letter to the members --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Could you please identify yourself.
Thank you.
MR. ROGAN: My name is Richard Rogan. I'm a resident at
Naples Heritage.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. ROGAN: I sent a letter to you-all twice; once in October
and then a second time I, unfortunately, had to inflict the letter again
on two of you to catch up with the three new members.
My intention today was to review that letter and add a series of
comments to it. I'm going to operate on the assumption that you-all
did read the letter. I have copies if you need them. But I'm just going
to assume the letter and -- therefore, I'm going to start to -- I'm going to
use it as my guideline, and I'm going to paraphrase my own letter and
add comments to it.
January 10, 2017
Page 114
And I guess the first comment and the first point I made in the
first paragraph is -- to remind everybody, and you're going to hear me
say it more than once -- there were 464 residents at Naples Heritage
that did approve this project. And, quite frankly, it's apparent to me
that their interests seem to have slipped away somewhere and that,
indeed, rather than being in the background they need to be in the
forefront, and that's what I'm going to set out to do today.
I'll give a little bit of my own background. I'm not sure why, but
it's in the letter and I'm going to repeat it. I'm a former president of the
homeowners association board of trustees. I was chairman of the
Long-Range Planning Committee that planned the expansion that
we're talking about here. I'm also a former president of Cypress Point,
the neighborhood that includes the 101 single-family homes.
And just as another point, I happen to live within five homes of
the site. So I'm not exactly on the other side of the world opining on
what's going on.
A little more background on the five acres and how it came to
pass. Bob did mention there was a developer that approached the
community and wanted to build 104 condominium-style homes on that
site and asked for permission to come through our gate down Naples
Heritage, down Colonial Court to support that. The Board at the time
said no thank you, understandably so. Quite frankly, their concern was
the stress that it would put on the existing community facilities.
After the decision to not go forward with that, one of the owners
offered to sell the five acres and, under the circumstances, it kind of
made sense that we do that. There's been some representation that that
was, indeed, the only reason why we purchased the property.
So I went to a neighbor of mine who happens to be -- was the
president of the board of trustees at the time, and I suggested to him
that the representation is made that that was the only reason. And he
assured me that not only was there discussion about alternative uses
January 10, 2017
Page 115
but specifically tennis before the purchase was made. So it was part of
the decision, if you will, to make that -- to go forward. So, frankly, to
suggest that was the only decision just doesn't make sense.
By way of update -- and I think this is also important. Since the
construction of Santa Barbara, this property is directly accessible from
Santa Barbara. So precluding outside traffic from coming through to
the community to reach this is a moot point at this stage. It doesn't
make any difference because the property is now accessible for
development from Santa Barbara. And if you consider the activity
that's taking place at the intersection of Santa Barbara and Whitaker
and at the intersection of Santa Barbara and Polly Avenue, it doesn't
take a lot of imagination to see that development will be taking place
there.
Actually, in the Planning Commission meeting of November
17th, Chairman Strain pointed out to the Colonial Court residents that
given that development potential, the residents might actually be better
served with a tennis development given that they virtually have no
control over the development that might take place should this piece of
property not be under our control.
Let me see where I'm at at this stage. I've gotten way ahead of
myself. Probably not going to need all the time. Good news.
Oh. Note here, and carrying on from where I am, if we end up
not now being able to use the site to benefit the community at large,
then there's no reason to own it. Particularly, since at the initial
purchase price of $40,000 -- and I'm not a realtor, and this is right off
the top of my head -- but I suspect we could double that and sell that
and use it to recoup a portion of the costs associated with the attempt
that we're trying to make here that we think is important.
There's been a lot of discussion about the relocation of the tennis
courts to the site next to the driving range and whether or not that was
adequately pursued. I'm not sure that we have in the audience any
January 10, 2017
Page 116
former members of our Long-Range Planning Committee. But we
have been in some form of contact with the Corps of Engineers and
Southwest Water Management -- South Florida Water Management
for a number of years on the subject; by the way, including the offer to
swap this five acres plus the -- plus the 3-acre easement that we're
asking you to vacate since it's not going to be used. We've offered the
eight acres and said no.
All right. Did we file an application? No, we did not. Did we --
did we make notes at the time? No. But I can assure you that a
number of my predecessors have been in and out of this discussion for
a long time. This is not a new issue.
Again, the suggestion's made that there's been no good-faith effort
to find alternatives. I'm not going to replow that ground. Obviously,
there was.
The idea that the alternative analysis was not filed until April
doesn't mean that we didn't analyze and discuss all of the alternatives.
And, quite frankly, if you think about it, why would you begin the
formal process with the Corps until after you get the community to
agree to let you spend the money?
So the vote was in March. The report was in April. Duh. You
know, that's it.
It's the whole notion of parking. Yes, we are emphasizing
parking, all right. But to better understand, you know, we're talking
about an expansion project that includes the relocation of the tennis
courts, the construction of the parking, an administrative building
adjacent to that, taking the current fitness center space to set up
common meeting rooms, and redoing the pool, all right. So this isn't
just about moving tennis courts, and it just isn't about parking. The
fact that we're trying to solve parking as part of the overall problem
doesn't diminish the importance of parking; it's important, but so are all
of the other things.
January 10, 2017
Page 117
So I'm going to kind of go back and read a little bit of my letter,
because I think it's going to help me get through the next part, and it
goes this way: In March 2015 the Long-Range Planning Committee
was charged with the responsibility of developing a plan that would
positively impact as many residents of the 799 homes as possible and
to do so in a cost-effective manner.
Between April and October, a plan was crafted following a
broad-based examination of what other comparable clubs are doing
and newer communities were offering their residents. Between early
October and mid November -- is there any water available?
Apparently not. Okay. So we'll keep going.
Twenty-two neighborhood meetings were conducted to present
the initial concept and to gain input that was used to make
modifications. Between January and early February 2016, three town
hall meetings were held to present a mostly finished plan and to gather
additional feedback. Approximately -- thank you. Approximately
1,000 people attended the small group meetings and the town hall
meetings.
So any suggestion that there wasn't any notice or that this in any
way came up as a surprise is, indeed, a surprise.
The subject -- the comment was made that the tennis courts are
1.6 miles from their current -- the current location. I'm sure that
distance is correct. But another interesting fact is that 60 percent of
our current tennis players live closer to the new site than they do the
old. So if identifying the distance in any way is intended to point out
inconvenience to the community, not currently.
So on March 25th, 2016, the results of a community-wide vote
was published, and it was 464 households who voted yes. The
association documents require that a project like this must receive at
least one more than 50 percent of the votes which, of course, we did.
But if you look at the outcome of the vote against a more common
January 10, 2017
Page 118
standard which is often used, which is the majority of those voting, all
right, the approval voting rating jumps to 64.7 percent.
So many clubs used that standard in making this determination.
And on that standard, as well as our own more stringent standard, the
community supported the project.
When you break the 466 units -- votes down, there are five voting
districts in Naples Heritage based on type of housing. So, for instance,
the single-family homes are one voting district. There are nine voting
districts. If you spread those 464 votes across all those voting districts,
every voting district, including Cypress Point, voted in favor of the
project.
Craig Smith had mentioned the -- I guess -- wait a minute. Let
me get back to where I am -- I was here. Okay. Here we go. Rest
assured, I'm getting close to the end.
When we each -- you know, when we each bought into the -- into
the planned community, we acknowledged the role played by the
association when it comes to the number of issues included --
including common area. Now, I'm certainly not an attorney -- we've
got a couple here that can keep me straight if I go off the deep end.
But as a layman, as I understand it, you know, once this property is
included in the PUD, it becomes part of the common area. A number
of residents have asked me, how is it that so few people can hold the
community hostage? After all, was there not a majority vote in favor
of the plan? How is it that their votes are being ignored? And,
honestly, I don't have an answer for that.
Let me kind of summarize the points that I think I've made and I
hope have represented the community at large, because that, again, was
my objective.
On May 5th, 2016, a plan was brought forward that was
developed over seven months and was -- and was presented and
discussed with over 1,000 residents. It was approved by 64.7 percent
January 10, 2017
Page 119
of the voting membership, along with meeting our more stringent
minimum requirement. It has received two unanimous favorable
recommendations from the Planning Commission. It was twice
favorably recommended by county staff.
The concerns of the six homeowners have been addressed in
every way practical, and I would hope there will be more questions of
Bob in that regard. But the number of changes that have been made
since the initial meeting are significant. And, frankly, the rest of the
community now deserves to be favorably considered.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so the public hearing part of this is
closed, the public comment, and so now I guess we --
MR. MULHERE: I did have a --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you want to sum up?
MR. MULHERE: I did want to just rebut a few things. Thank
you. I appreciate the extra few minutes. Again, for the record, Bob
Mulhere.
A couple of things. Competing experts in terms of environmental
permitting. Gina Green and Craig Smith have worked on this project
for a long time, but they also have a significant amount of experience
in the permitting process, as I'm sure Mr. Ramsey does as well. And as
Rich, I think, indicated, we do have to complete that process. Though
we are substantially through with the process in the Water
Management District and the Corps, we do have to complete that
process. And I can assure you that the issues that relate to drainage,
floodplain management, and LASIP are all part of those
considerations. That is required to be addressed, and it has to be
addressed or you don't get approved.
With respect to traffic and additional traffic moving past the
January 10, 2017
Page 120
existing clubhouse location, there will be relatively low traffic during
normal tennis use. The issue that was raised was special events. And,
again, we've agreed to have those participants in the special events
transported from the clubhouse to this site so that we would minimize
trips.
But we're really not talking about hundreds and hundreds of
people. You're talking about a few dozen people; interclub play. It's
very, very small, the impact.
I think the other thing I want to point out or reiterate is the nature
of what we have agreed to. And I just want to put the site plan on the
visualizer again. And just give me one second because I know it's
here. Here it is.
What exists today adjacent to the Colonial Court residents is a
25-foot conservation easement right there, right there, 25 feet,
connecting this property to this property. This portion of it adjacent to
Mr. Huber's property was cleared probably during construction of the
home. We don't know, but it was cleared, and it remains cleared today.
So you have a 25-foot landscape buffer. What we have proposed
is in addition to that 25-foot conservation easement that we'd be
vacating, we would replace that with a planted enhanced landscape.
And in the case of Mr. Huber's property, we would leave this vacant
and put that landscape buffer adjacent to that vacant area, because he's
had the ability to access his yard through that sort of cleared
conservation easement since he's lived there and we would -- by
vacating the easement, we would be able to maintain that.
And then over here, we would put the 25-foot landscape buffer
immediately adjacent to Colonial Court. Then beyond that we would
have a substantial natural area here, here, and here so that really the
impact is the access.
This is all conservation. This is all natural area to be retained or
replanted if anything dies in perpetuity; same thing here. Everything's
January 10, 2017
Page 121
been shifted away.
I would suggest to you that they actually have a better condition
here today with these conditions in place than what they -- with this
proposal than what exists today or what could exist if this property is
developed for some other reason. And eventually this property will be
developed for some other reason if it's not used for the tennis court
center.
That concludes my comments. I'm sure you have some questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, sir. No questions.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think that closes the hearing, and
now we can debate. No debate? Do I hear a motion?
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, are you going to take each item
separately for a motion and vote? Is that what the County Attorney
suggests?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So the first item -- and I think
I'll ask our County Attorney -- or our County Manager to read what
we're voting on on 9A.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. 9A is a vote to approve an amendment
to the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit
Development ordinance by changing the zoning classification of the
5.21 acres of land that's currently zoned agricultural to become Naples
Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD by adding a tennis center
conceptual site plan and landscape buffer that was described.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this your district?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's yours.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's yours.
January 10, 2017
Page 122
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is mine?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Geez, oh man.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's Burt's?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, is it my district? Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was Burt's.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I didn't know I went that far
south.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's all of our district.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I didn't know that either.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. And it doesn't really
matter. You know, these are always very difficult issues.
I met with the folks that are objecting to this, and they have a very
compelling argument. I met with the folks that are supporting this.
They have a very compelling argument. I've always been very
concerned about opening up a PUD doing anything that's going to
negatively impact an existing community.
I'm going to go ahead and make a motion just to get the item on
the floor. With some folks it's not going to be very popular. With
some folks it will be pretty popular. But I think it's the right thing, and
often that's a difficult choice.
But I'm going to make a motion to approve the Item 9A. I believe
that with what's been -- the conditions that are in there, that the existing
units are protected. I think there's a sufficient buffering; 150 feet from
the property line to the tennis court with a substantial green space in
between over that 150 feet.
So I think that the -- and with the parking at the clubhouse; in the
event that there's an event, people have to be bussed down there.
There can't be just simply 100 cars coming down there. You've got 24
parking spaces, I believe.
And so I'm going to make a motion to approve it.
January 10, 2017
Page 123
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Second. All right. Any
discussion? Yes, Mr. McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I would like to say -- I'd
like to say a couple of things, and I'd like to ask a question of our
County Attorney, County Manager, however we go there. I really
have no issue with the inclusion of this property into the PUD for
protection of the residents as it was originally intended to be
purchased. I do have an issue with the use proposed.
I believe as cited in our executive summary Items 10 through 14,
there are very specific questions that are not answered by the use
request that the applicant has put forth. I would like to commend the
applicant with regard to their efforts to appease/work with the
neighbors. It's obviously evident, Bob, Rich, that you did do a
considerable amount of time, but I don't think that the compatibility of
the tennis courts in a residential area down there is a prudent thought
process.
And so with that, again, the subdivision made a purchase. They
expended money in this permitting process as they're going along, and
including it into the PUD for protection purposes is fine with me. We
all know that eventually it's going to get used for something, and that
would allow them then the opportunity to recoup some of these
expenses and/or utilize the disposition of these assets, this asset, for
something more compatible to what's already transpiring there.
Can we do that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, with the applicant's permission. It's
the applicant's request here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Hello, Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's -- I would never advise my client
to incorporate property into a PUD without knowing what the uses will
January 10, 2017
Page 124
be allowed in the future into that PUD.
So our request is to go forward with the PUD to add this property
to allow for these, you know, limited tennis facilities, and that's the
request that we're going to request that you vote up or down either
way, because coming into the property without any known use for that
property doesn't make any sense.
MR. KLATZKOW: So the answer's no?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A long way.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, but I thought I needed to be fair
to explain why instead of just simply saying no.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I seconded the motion, and I didn't
do that lightly, because this is one of those situations that it's going to
affect someone.
I think that, unfortunately, this -- or depending on which side of
the aisle you're sitting on. This particular property was not originally
part of the PUD or the Naples Heritage development. And as I
understand it, it was purchased essentially to avoid its development
into a pretty dense condominium association, which could have put its
tennis courts there.
So, unfortunately, I don't see the ability to rely upon that it wasn't
developed as a basis for denying the application. I think, as a legal
matter, that's problematic.
I commend the applicant for reworking the site as much as they
could to move it as far away as possible. Certainly, if it was developed
as a condominium association -- I mean, a separate condominium
development, there certainly could be a much smaller landscape buffer
than 150 feet. I think that's pretty safe to assume.
So it is one of those situations, but we have to look at these things
based upon the code and the facts presented, and I really see no other
choice.
January 10, 2017
Page 125
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you want to speak?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can speak.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, you do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My concern has been -- I
think the developer tried very hard to do everything he could to make
the neighbors happy in that area.
I then put myself in the homes of the neighbors there, and I'm
thinking, if I would have paid $10,000 more for my property, probably
my taxes are higher, too, and I paid for that because I wanted a place
that's secluded. So you think of the golf courses; the same thing that's
happening to them.
I bought this knowing full well that I would never -- I would
always be secluded, and then all of a sudden, through no fault of my
own, it isn't anymore. And no matter how you play -- you downplay
the fact that there would -- that these things would not happen, there
will be people coming and going, and the privacy that they've had all
along in this secluded area, they will not have anymore. So I'm having
a tough time moving away from that, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And I'd like to comment also.
I am troubled by the fact that I don't think the Corps has reviewed
an alternative site plan. I do believe it's been proposed, but they
haven't opined on it.
I am concerned that this property, which is the potential for the
tennis courts, was ever up as a mitigation site. I'm intrigued by that
concept. There is a question there.
And, yes, I would agree that according to what you have, the poll
that you have taken, the majority of folks that live in Naples Heritage,
you know, wanted tennis courts at this location. But I'm also
concerned that this location is going to affect five or six homes in a
negative way.
And I think the developer has done -- and I would echo the
January 10, 2017
Page 126
comments up here. You have done more than you probably needed to
do to make this work for these folks. But in the end, the tennis court's
going to be right across from them, and that's not what I would
consider a compatible use for this part of the neighborhood. So,
unfortunately, I cannot support this.
So we have a motion on the floor to support the position of
putting the tennis courts, and -- Mr. McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have one more.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Call me mister, commissioner.
Miss Donna calls me all kinds of things.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Miss Donna?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
One of the other points that I would like to make, and that is,
there were representations about the need for the expansion of the
parking facilities due to the business growth that's transpiring there at
Naples Heritage, that they have been bringing on other businesses and
outside entertainment and the like, and that was another one of the
reasons -- did I say outside entertainment?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You did.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forgive me. That's not what I
--
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not business.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The business of the clubhouse
facility has expanded enormously -- forgive me for misspeaking. I'll
do it regularly.
The expansion of those business facilities has necessitated the
expansion of the parking. I just wanted to say that out loud. That was
a portion of why I was leaning the direction that I was.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So the motion on the
floor supports the petitioner asking that this land be brought into the
January 10, 2017
Page 127
PUD and zoned for the tennis courts, if I can paraphrase it correctly.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a question before you vote?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, you may.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. There seems to be some confusion
as to what was or was not offered to the Corps of Engineers regarding
alternative site mitigation. I would like, if the Board's inclined, to
allow us to continue the petition. We will take Mr. Ramsey with us to
the Corps -- and if we have to pay his fees for him to go -- to hear from
the Corps themselves what was actually presented to them and the
alternative mitigation that -- and maybe he'll persuade them that he's
right, and then everybody will be happy.
So what I'm asking is if we can have a continuance to at least
allow us to have that conversation with the Corps. I think that
information might be valuable to some of the county commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: With all due respect, this has been
discussed since September, and that probably should have been done
before, so I cannot accept that.
All right. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those
in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. 3-2 against the motion.
Item #9B
PETITION VAC-PL20160001403 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE
AND VACATE COUNTY AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN TRACT
RW4, AN APPROXIMATELY 100-FOOT WIDE, 1,300-FOOT
January 10, 2017
Page 128
LONG TRACT DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY FOR FUTURE
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCORDING TO NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF
AND COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE, PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 73
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
1/2-MILE EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD., AND 1-MILE
SOUTH OF DAVIS BLVD, IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEMS #9A AND #9C) -
PETITIONER WITHDREW AT HEARING
Item #9C
PETITION VAC-PL20160001406 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE
AND VACATE A PORTION OF THE TRACT C5
CONSERVATION AREA, AND A PORTION OF THE 10-FOOT
COLLIER COUNTY CONSERVATION BUFFER EASEMENT
WITHIN TRACT C5, AS SHOWN ON NAPLES HERITAGE
GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PHASE ONE, PLAT BOOK 26,
PAGE 73 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1/2- MILE EAST OF SANTA BARBARA
BLVD, AND 1-MILE SOUTH OF DAVIS BLVD, IN SECTION 9,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEMS #9A
AND #9B) - PETITIONER WITHDREW AT HEARING
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to the vote on Item 9B.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Are we -- do I have a motion --
do we have -- we have to vote on all of this; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: Mr. County Attorney, I believe we do.
January 10, 2017
Page 129
MR. KLATZKOW: All right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I thought --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let me ask the applicant because I
don't have too much concern about this one, but the third one you'll be
voting on, the applicant may want to withdraw. Your second request,
9B.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you said the third one; that's what
threw me off.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. This is the vacation of the
100-foot-wide, 1,300-foot-long tract. I take it you still want to
continue that application?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that we do. Do we need any
of these applications without --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's what I thought. One would
negate the both of them.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We can withdraw and --
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So your next applications will be
withdrawn?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that what we want to do? That's what
I'm told we want to do.
MR. KLATZKOW: Done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
So I think our court stenographer looks exhausted, and I think we
need to take a break.
County Manager, how much do we have left here on our agenda?
MR. OCHS: You have one public hearing item. That's the
Resource Recovery Park rezone. There are no registered speakers, I
believe, on that item. Then you have your public comments and
commissioner communications.
MR. MILLER: No registered speakers for public comment at this
time.
January 10, 2017
Page 130
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I'm going to bow to you,
ma'am. Would you like a 10-minute break here? Five minutes? Let's
do a five-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Item #9D
ORDINANCE 2017-01: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO AN INDUSTRIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(IPUD) ZONING DISTRICT
TO ALLOW SOLID WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
FACILITIES AND PUBLIC VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT
STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITIES FOR A PROJECT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY
BUSINESS PARK IPUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED 1.5- MILES
EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND 1-MILE NORTH OF
WHITE LAKE BOULEVARD IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CONSISTING OF 344± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
RESOLUTION NO. 09-275; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE – ADOPTED
January 10, 2017
Page 131
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, this takes us to Item D on your agenda.
This item also requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members, and all participants will be required to be sworn
in.
This is a recommendation to amend the Collier County Land
Development Code to change the zoning classification for the property
described as the Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park
from rural agricultural A zoning district to industrial planned unit
development district to allow for solid waste and resource recovery
facilities, public vehicle and equipment storage, and repair facilities.
Ex parte?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We'll start with
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have reviewed the staff
report, and I think that's it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I've just reviewed the staff
report as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I've had conversations about this
park in a very indirect way with staff over a period of time, and a
couple of members of the public.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I have -- I've had
meetings about this, just in general when I met with the board -- rather
with the County Manager, and I've talked over the years with Dan
Rodriguez lots of times, and I'm very supportive of it, by the way.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've had correspondence with
and phone calls with regard to this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: You have to swear in all participants.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. We have to swear in.
January 10, 2017
Page 132
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. OCHS: Petitioner? Whoever starts.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Division Director.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring to you this industrial PUD
resolution that was actually originally approved back in 2009.
We're asking for two slight modifications, and that's to increase
the building height for some of the facilities here to 50 feet, I believe,
from 30 feet, and also to add another access point to the park.
This is one of our greatest projects, we believe, because this
365-acre parcel is specifically zoned for solid waste, waste reduction,
and reuse activities.
As you are quite familiar, about 82 percent of the solid waste
operations is privatized. Developing this property will allow us to
bring in more vendors so that we can do more with our waste stream.
Just this year alone, Collier County produced over 1.7 million
tons of municipal waste in Collier County. That's up by over 350,000
tons. So as part of your integrated solid waste management strategy,
this is one of those components to maximize existing resources but
also to require new facilities. And that great saying "build it and they
will come," we need this facility so that we can have the infrastructure
to do more with our waste in Collier County.
And with that I'm going to turn it over to our planner, Tim
Hancock with Stantec, who will give you a quick rundown of the
resolution. Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Tim Hancock with Stantec.
I'm pleased to be representing Collier County and the hazardous
and solid waste department for this IPUD rezone.
Our team has worked long and hard. I've been involved in this
January 10, 2017
Page 133
project directly and indirectly in several different phases, and we're
pleased to be here today to really take things to the next level.
As Mr. Rodriguez mentioned, this board approved in 2006 an
integrated solid waste management strategy that has a lot of
components to it. And this park is a key and critical component to
advancing the county's interest in basically minimizing the volume and
airspace utilized at your landfill.
This project promotes reuse, recycling, and includes the
redevelopment of the Resource Recovery Business Park.
Before you is a project location map. North is at the top of your
screen; south at the bottom. And as you can see, the 344 acres of the
Resource Recovery Business Park is bordered on the west side or to
your left with Estates zoning and developed properties. To the north is
Hideout Golf Course and some additional properties developed both
for agricultural uses as well as residential. To the right or to the east
are a scattering of residential homes and some agricultural uses as well.
Immediately to the south, if you'll kind of see that impacted area,
that is your landfill. And to the left of that, that big green box there is
-- it's right here -- is a project that's come to be known as County 305.
You own that property as well.
So, you know, you are the neighbor. You are the applicant. But
we do have neighbors to the east, west, and north. And as mentioned,
this project was originally rezoned in 2009, and that zoning included
all of the land uses you're going to see before you today.
Backing up a half step further, this property is located in the rural
fringe mixed-use district and is designated as sending lands lying
within the North Belle Meade overlay; however, in your Growth
Management Plan this property is specifically addressed within the
sending lands designation under Item 8A2 which permits, and I quote,
public facilities, including solid waste resource recovery facilities and
public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities.
January 10, 2017
Page 134
But -- and this is important, particularly I think for the one
registered speaker you have today: Your Growth Management Plan
precludes this property specifically for expansion of landfill into
Section 25 for the purpose of solid waste disposal; in other words, we
cannot dispose of solid waste on this property.
So what you see before you today is a recitation of the same uses
that are approved in 2009 with the two differences Mr. Rodriguez
mentioned.
This is an exhibit we used at the previous meeting, and I think one
of -- a resident or a member of the public may have also cited this
example.
And in addition to the land uses and the two items we're
requesting in this PUD, I wanted to bring to your attention -- many of
you are familiar with a project called Wilson-Benfield. This was a
study that was accepted by this board, and it will ultimately allow for
the completion of a loop, if you will, from City Gate Boulevard North,
which comes in from 951, and that is the left as you look at this photo,
through the City Gate project. It will turn down through the County
305, cross I-75, and go all the way down to U.S. 41. Again, it's called
the Wilson-Benfield alignment.
The county approved the purchase of this 305-acre parcel, and
one of the reasons was -- for that acquisition was for transportation
purposes to facilitate the Wilson-Benfield alignment, but also
contained in that discussion was to provide better access to the
Resource Recovery Business Park.
So one of the two changes we're asking for today is one that was
already discussed and directed when this property was acquired. So
we have multiple needs getting met by the action that is being taken
today.
The access arrow you see here, the final alignment has not been
determined, but what we are able to determine, though, is that the
January 10, 2017
Page 135
county has also approved a developer contribution agreement with City
Gate for the access road necessary for the Resource Recovery Business
Park.
And this may help tell that story just a little bit better. The
development you see here is actually a South Florida Water
Management District site that is currently under construction. They
may have occupancy now; I'm not really sure. They do; thank you.
And this is where City Gate Boulevard currently comes to a terminus.
Currently, the county will be constructing City Gate Boulevard
North under a developer contribution agreement approved by this
board through City Gate Phase III, and then also picking up and
creating an access road into the Resource Recovery Business Park.
The need for that access road has a long story, and I'll try and
make it as short as I can. But when this property was rezoned in 2009
for conditional use, at that time the county did not own the 305 parcel;
therefore, the only means of access was either to come in from
residential streets that surround the property, which was not desirable,
or to come in through the landfill. So all access points at that time
were determined to come through the landfill.
We knew then and has been proven now that at some point Cell
No. 8 across the northern part of the landfill would preclude access
going up through the middle of that property. So it was always
imagined that eventually this property would be accessed through City
Gate Boulevard North.
With the county purchasing the 305-acre parcel and the county
now having the DCA with City Gate, that access is a possibility, and
we couldn't achieve that access without amending the resolution, and
that's one of the two purposes of that PUD is to simply add that
connection arrow, if you will, on the master concept plan to allow
access to come in through City Gate. This is a copy of the master
concept plan that is a part of the ordinance in your package.
January 10, 2017
Page 136
The second reason for coming before you actually was something
we discovered as we were doing site visits to different sites looking at
alternative technologies, and one of them was a biosolids facilities at
the Reedy Creek site up near Disney where they process biosolids and
actually turn the biosolids plus feed stock into gas, which with they
then use to power the facility, and they even have the ability to sell off
or reuse that in other ways. Again, waste to energy in some fashion or
form.
In looking at that facility, we noticed that the building heights
were probably going to exceed 35 feet that was or currently is allowed
within Resolution 09-275. That 35 feet is the underlying height within
the agricultural zoning district.
So in looking at that, in order to ensure that we have the greatest
ability to put as much processing as possible inside enclosed buildings,
we are requesting -- we're requesting an increase in height from 35 to
50 feet but only on Tracts B and C. That means that the tracts that are
closest to residential development and existing homes would remain at
the 35-foot height.
This is a sightline exhibit which may be a little bit difficult to see
at this scale. But going from left to right, this is -- you're sitting at the
Estates homes to the left of the project. You have a 150-foot canal
easement, a 20-foot access easement, a 200-foot buffer, which is
required within the PUD. That provides a distance of more than 370
feet from the nearest property line to the edge of the first development
envelope. That development envelope would be limited to 35 feet and
as a minimum of another 300 feet.
So as you can see, we're getting out there to 670 feet before you
get to any buildings that could be 50 feet in height. With the existing
height of the vegetation in place that is part of a preserve there, this
change, for all intents and purposes, disappears. From a sightline
basis, you'll never see the 50-foot-tall buildings. You probably won't
January 10, 2017
Page 137
see the 35-foot.
On the other side of the project where there are homes as well, the
situation is very similar. We don't have a 150-foot canal, but we do
have the right-of-way for Garland Road, we have 170 feet of preserve,
we have 300 feet at 35 feet, before you get to the 50 feet.
So what we've done is we've stepped up and buffered the adjacent
properties from this request for an increase in height, and I think we've
done all that we can to all but make these buildings disappear.
When you go from a conditional use to a rezone, it's both -- and
sometimes it's a liability and sometimes it's an opportunity. We saw
this as an opportunity to build into the PUD some additional
safeguards that were not built in at the time of the conditional use.
The conditional use had 12 limitations; all 12 of those are
embodied in this PUD or contained in the restrictions you see within
this document.
But we've gone a few steps further. Number one, noise. By
increasing building height, we have a greater ability to make sure that
we have processing indoors as much as is possible and practical. So
we think the increase in height is actually resulting in an increase in
compatibility.
Secondly, native buffers. At the time of the conditional use, areas
on the master plan were identified as buffers or preserve. Most of
these areas are now designated as conservation easements. The
easements are to the benefit of the Army Corps of Engineers and the
South Florida Water Management District. The reason they're not to
the county is because you can't give yourself an easement.
But we do have other agencies that have control over those
easements. So it's not just a promise that was made in 2009. It's a
reality on the books today. So that's being embodied in this.
The PUD has further been amended to ensure that the buffers not
just remain but they also will be planted and augmented where
January 10, 2017
Page 138
adjacent to residential to ensure a certain opacity. That has been built
into the PUD. Again, not something that's in the '09 resolution.
Outdoor lighting. We've heard more and more about lighting
areas where we have sensitive habitat.
So we've done two things in the PUD. We've built in two
requirements. One is that all fixtures, outdoor fixtures, will be flat
panel with cutoff shields, not just not allowing light to spill onto
adjacent property, but not allowing light to spill into the adjacent
preserve.
The preserve to our north is critical, and the reason it's critical is
because it is very good habitat for our favorite, loving Florida bonneted
bat. I know everyone's got a few of them at home. But also for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. They actually use the same habitat.
We've used not just creating a preserve there, but we've actually
created what are called recruitment clusters, which means, should they
reestablish in the area, we've got homes and condos for them free. So
the RCW and the Florida bonneted bat are welcome in your county
preserve.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager Ochs, any impact fees
with that?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. We're including it in our affordable
housing inventory.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to say, in the rent
associated with this.
MR. HANCOCK: You can have just a little bit of fun in this
process. But we've also added that the fixtures shall be LED, and that
was a suggestion made by Commissioner Strain. And the Planning
Commission did a lot to help shape this coming forward as well, and
we certainly want to thank them for their efforts and their voice in that
as well.
Buffer language has also been added, as I mentioned, to ensure
January 10, 2017
Page 139
opacity of 80 percent within one year, and we have a time frame
established on that that exceeds what the code does. So, again, it's
telling the neighbors, we're not just telling you we're going to do it;
we're not going to get a CO until we do it. So that's built into the PUD
as well.
Long-term access: And this one's huge. While we do have
physical access through the landfill, we looked very, very carefully
over a course of years at what it would cost to improve that access to
allow for heavy ton vehicles such as drilling rigs that may need access
periodically to the site to use the berms on the edges of the landfill.
They would have to be almost destructed and reconstructed to do
that. Very expensive. We can actually -- we could have actually build
a separate road cheaper than doing that.
Well, in essence, thanks to the DCA with City Gate, we have a
win-win. We're using existing infrastructure with roads, water, and
sewer all there. The county's constructing the access road so we have
improved long-term access. That greatly reduces the likelihood that
we would ever need to use residential roads in proximity to this
project. We should be able to exist, between City Gate Boulevard
North and the existing landfill, with no other need for means of access
outside of extreme emergencies.
And, lastly, we've gotten out of the front end of water-quality
testing, recognizing that the county is currently looking at the wellfield
protection zones in such a way that those zones may be modified or
enlarged to actually take into account surface water movements. Here
we are sitting right next to the Golden Gate Canal, and we have wells
within our project. Now, they are deep wells, but they're wells.
So what we've done is put language in the PUD that gets ahead of
any potential ordinance change you're looking at that says, every time
a Site Development Plan comes forward, pollution control will take a
look at it. And if they deem that the proposed land is something that
January 10, 2017
Page 140
might have an impact on surface water, then they will work with us to
create a specific testing program to ensure the surface water runoff
does not exceed acceptable standards.
So we're recognizing that we are the county; we have to do a
better job. And so we've worked closely with pollution control. That
language has also been added to the PUD.
And probably one of the biggest surprises bringing this project
forward was, when we had the neighborhood information meeting and
there was probably 50 or 60 people present, I assumed most of them
had gone through back in 2009. And I said, well, can I see a show of
hands of the number of people that remember going through this in
2009. I think there were about six hands out of 50.
Apparently a lot of people have moved into this area since 2009.
And we had kind of a reeducation process. So while the zoning has
been there since 2009 and while we are not changing any of the
approved land uses whatsoever, there's a lot of folks that feel this is an
infringement or an encroachment that they were unaware of.
Well, for that we've done everything we can to add additional
safeguards to the PUD. And I believe that today's ordinance before
you takes strides to improve compatibility with neighboring properties,
does not increase impacts to neighboring properties in any way, shape,
or form and, as such, is about as neighborly as we can get short of
deciding we're just simply not going to build anything on the property.
The property has already been impacted. It's currently being used
as a storm debris emergency laydown area; 40 acres have been cleared.
We have all of our environmental permits. All it takes is money to get
from here to there.
But we did wisely put together a phased mitigation plan, so we
only have to clear and take down land as there is a viable land use for it
so we don't have to pay all that mitigation money up front. So we're
being as thrifty as we can with your dollars. And with today's action,
January 10, 2017
Page 141
we think the stage is set that when that next great idea lands, that we
can further reduce the waste stream going to landfill, you will be ready
for it.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time or
after public comment as appropriate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I wasn't paying attention. Who
was first? Ah. Mr. McDaniel, Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That might have been a
leftover from the last one, but I do have a question for him, for Tim.
It is -- and that is, in regard to the preserve area to the north, has it
necessarily stayed the same as was originally proposed in 2008? And
correct me if I'm wrong; it's close to 135, 140 acres of preserve area up
there?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And it's actually in excess of 172
acres. The minimum requirement is 172. I think if you take
conservation easement plus preserve, we're around 183 or 189.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. What about odors? Will there
be any odors that the neighbors will have to deal with?
MR. HANCOCK: We have signs that say "no odors," and we
think that will do it. But just in case it doesn't, as you know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That keeps them out.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, just like it does animals and critters and
trespassers and all that kind of stuff. But, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bonnet bats.
MR. HANCOCK: Bonneted bats, yes. No, your Solid Waste
Department, and I think -- this is one of the things that came out of
NIM is -- and even at the last public hearing. Everyone remembers
who has lived in that area a long time what it used to be like there.
January 10, 2017
Page 142
Okay. And it was your current administration and your current
leadership in Solid Waste and Public Utilities that took an impossible
problem and got it under control. They will apply that same tenacity to
anything that comes.
And I'll give you an example why the idea of increased building
height struck us so clearly. We were at the Reedy Creek facility, and a
truck backed up to basically dump, I think it was, lettuce or something.
But there are different, you know, streams that come into a bio-facility
that all are used to process and create and all this kind of stuff.
So the truck backs up, and the truck is dumping. And we noticed
the truck was dumping into an area that had basically a vacuum effect.
So as things are being dumped, the air was being drawn back through
filters before it was being released. And there was no odor.
What we noticed was, if the truck had been able to go back about
10 more feet, the sounds of the engine could have been muffled by the
building itself. But the problem was when they designed it, they
designed it so that the opening wasn't quite high enough for that to
happen.
Well, if we had a 50-foot height, we could get that truck all the
way inside the building. Those are the thought processes that Mr.
Rodriguez and his team are using in coming forward with these
changes. So by increasing that building height, we think we'll be able
to contain and control odors.
We also have learned quite a bit about odor sensing systems. The
Reedy Creek facility has sensors throughout the perimeter that actually
pick up chemicals in the air that are associated with odors. It can
determine at certain times with the prevailing winds what may happen
if a certain operation is undertaken, and you can delay or change the
times of the operation to coordinate with wind.
Those technologies are out there, and I can assure you, with the
leading technology group you have in your Public Utilities
January 10, 2017
Page 143
Department, we will bring all those things to bear to make sure that the
residents are just as happy today as -- you know, they'll be just that
happy in 10 years from now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I asked that question
purposely because, in case anybody is listening or living in that area, I
wanted them to hear the answer.
In the East Naples area, we have a wastewater treatment plant
right inside a community. I mean, I'm not talking about 50 feet away.
I'm talking about on the other side of the trees. And they keep that so
well maintained that there's -- I never get a complaint and, you know,
anybody can pick up their phone and call me anytime, and I never get a
complaint.
And I really have to add how pleased I am with not only the
wastewater treatment plant, but all of the recycling plants as well. You
could eat off their floors, for goodness sake. I wish my floors were
that clean.
Anyway, the next thing I wanted to ask was about the noise level.
How about neighbors having to deal with any noise level?
MR. HANCOCK: There are going to be some noises associated
with certain processes that cannot be enclosed, and one of them, as a
good example, is the mulching operation. We have to process the yard
waste and the debris, and that requires a portable grinder. You cannot
have a fixed-station grinder. It just doesn't work that way, and the
reason is because you have to kind of move with the piles, so to speak.
So I guess the best answer to that is we are currently doing that
same operation 100 feet in the air on the existing landfill, and we have
no noise complaints. What we're talking about doing is moving it a
little bit to the north, bringing it down to grade level, but also the site
has been designed with enough space so that we can use actual piles as
noise barriers between the grinder itself and the residences.
Also, the PUD requires that that operation be as far to the south as
January 10, 2017
Page 144
possible. Those safeguards, we believe, will actually make it a better
neighbor than what's happening right now on top of the existing
landfill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Two more
things. Light intrusions. Will there be any light intrusions as far as the
neighbors go?
MR. HANCOCK: No, ma'am. Will they be able to see ambient
light at grade through the trees? It's possible. But what we have done
is we've indicated that security level lighting only would be used at
nighttime.
So when there's no operational reason to have lights on outside,
we'll lower them to a minimum security level recognizing this is a
public facility and does handle -- you know, there may be
administration buildings and maintenance buildings for water and
wastewater operations, so there might be some activities that occur
outside of your landfill hours, for example. But those will be fairly
minimum. And with the cutoff shields, flat panel, LEDs, and a
reduction to security level lighting outside of operational hours, we
believe we have addressed that as much as we can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. And, lastly -- and I'm just
judging that everything is going to go the same way as it does the
landfill. I take tours up every other year, and I take a whole busload of
people up there. And I've had people afraid to get off the bus. They
said, oh, I don't know. I don't want to smell it. And other people get
out and then they're motioning them to come out.
You walk out of that bus, you're watching them fill the landfill
right while you're standing on the top of another one, and there's no
odor.
And, I mean, we've done such a great job, and I think it's been a
pride to Collier County throughout the state of Florida, by the way,
how well we maintain this. So I have every confidence that you will
January 10, 2017
Page 145
do an excellent job on this as well.
Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, I appreciate that, but I really think Mr.
Rodriguez and Dr. Yilmaz, under Mr. Ochs, have done an amazing
job. And it's my pleasure to bring this project forward. And, yes, that
same level of commitment has been evident every step of this project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. I think that's it. I believe --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Speakers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- we have a speaker. I think we have
one speaker; is that correct?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Your registered speaker is Ryan
Scott.
MR. SCOTT: Hello there. I am a resident nearby. I live on 2809
Garland Road, just to the northeast of the property we're in discussion
here. I am a new resident to the area.
The concerns that we have as the residents, the big thing is the
sound. You know, the thing that you can hear now is the backups.
The backups from the different equipment, things like that, that travels.
And right now, from the top of the landfill, yeah, it travels like crazy.
And so, therefore, you know, as you bring it inside the building,
that's great. But the request is, from the Board here, is that just the
sound is -- whatever mitigation is possible to do to try and mitigate that
sound. You know, I'm guessing it's going to be metal buildings, et
cetera. You know, you don't want that sound echoing there out of it.
So whatever sound dampening can be done for those buildings would
be a huge plus to all the neighbors.
I know you guys have added vegetation buffers to the east and to
the west. The only additional request would that be there's one to the
north of the Tract C. With your neighboring residents right up to that
northeast area, with a 50-foot building, you have pretty thin vegetation
January 10, 2017
Page 146
there, in all honesty, after you've gone through and done your exotic
clearing -- that there be an additional vegetation barrier to the north of
that C tract to help not only with the sightline, but probably more
additionally with the sound. It would be a huge benefit.
It is a very busy environmental area currently. You have active
panthers through the area, numerous deer through the area. You have
about half a dozen eagles there right now currently nesting/roosting in
this area. So it is a very vibrant environmental space that you
absolutely want to preserve for the county.
I know Mr. Hancock mentioned utilizing piles of debris for
mulching to help mitigate that sound but, you know, at the same token,
you also mentioned that you weren't going to be storing debris there on
site. So that necessarily doesn't equal a long-term solution for
mitigating the sound from these mulching activities. So that's where a
vegetation barrier along the north of C or additional sound prevention
measures incorporated in your building would be greatly beneficial to
the residents.
Granted, this is a county project for the county for eventual
private, so I don't quite have as many people here as battling a tennis
court, per se, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I suggest, before he leaves, just
one quick thing. Do you think you could meet -- see that man sitting
down there? His name is Dan Rodriguez.
MR. SCOTT: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you exchange cards? Because
this way then you'll have somebody to call directly if you have a
problem.
MR. SCOTT: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
January 10, 2017
Page 147
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you can always call your
county commissioner as well.
MR. SCOTT: Will do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's him.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It is. I was aware that this one
is in my district, so -- it's in our district.
The comments that you had with regard to sound, noise, backup
alarms and such, I know from personal experience -- now, we have a
difficult time when we are accepting debris from outside facilities, but
baffling of our own equipment is certainly accomplishable. I know
there are certain safety with MSHA and OSHA regulations.
MR. SCOTT: Has to be a certain loudness, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. So we can't really
control the trucks that are bringing in debris and such from outside
facilities. But for our own utilization for our own equipment, we can
certainly manage the backup alarms. Those backup alarms are audible
sometimes for miles depending on which way the wind's blowing, and
they only need to be audible over the drone of the motor of the piece of
equipment that's, in fact, operating.
So we can take measures, I'm sure, with regard to those concerns
and assist with that.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And, really, that transmission of that sound,
then, offsite.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. SCOTT: You know, it wants to be for the guy that's
standing behind the truck so he knows it's coming, not --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amen.
MR. SCOTT: -- everybody that lives half a mile away.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely, sir. And I'm sure
we'll be able to take that into consideration as we are managing this
facility.
January 10, 2017
Page 148
MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
Any questions? Any more discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Don't talk us out of it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I was just going to say --
MR. HANCOCK: I do feel the need -- a statement was made that
I had mentioned we wouldn't be storing things on site, and that is -- if I
said that, I misspoke.
We obviously will have yard debris and storm debris on site, and
those piles will be there until such time as processed. I just didn't want
to mislead Mr. Scott or misinform Mr. Scott in any way.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think in the report that you
sent us, there was discussion -- I read it -- that the majority of the
storage was going to be towards the northern end just to assist with the
buffering over and above the preserve area that's already established
there. I remember reading that.
MR. HANCOCK: And the PUD does require drive-thru sites as
much as possible to reduce backup alarms.
January 10, 2017
Page 149
And I will get out of your way now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'll just finish by saying my
granddaughter, who's in second grade, toured the landfill a couple
weeks ago, and there were little kids who would not get out of the bus.
And she's saying, my grandma says it's fine. Come out, come out, and
they were shocked. These little kids, same thing. And there were little
ones. It's just like there was no smell. And they saw things.
And -- so it's pretty extraordinary. Congratulations, again. And I
assure our new resident that the standard is so high, and the bar keeps
getting higher.
The last thing that staff wants to do is to have you come to us
with complaints about what is going on there. So feel that you're in
very, very good hands with this.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 7, public
comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda.
MR. MILLER: We have no registered speakers on that item.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: The final item on today's agenda, Commissioners,
January 10, 2017
Page 150
for me anyhow, is staff and commission general communications.
Madam Chair, if you want me to start, as normal, I'll just remind
the Board that we, at the request of the City and the agreement of the
Board, we have scheduled the joint workshop between the City of
Naples and the Board. It's scheduled for March 7th at 9 a.m. in our
boardroom here.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And just a question with that. Are
there topics that are --
MR. OCHS: Yes. Mr. Moss and I are working on a draft of an
agenda, and we'll circulate that to the board members as a draft so you
can get all of your issues to me as well. Or if you have something
specific that you want on there --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to see if -- yeah, I'd like to see --
if I have consensus, I'd like to see if we can discuss -- and I mean that
in the very broadest terms -- a concept of a countywide ethics
commission, and there will be details brought forward to see if that is
something that my colleagues would be interested in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- exploring. I'm saying that,
exploring.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, of course. And I've had
several communications with counsel, and they're looking forward to
it. I believe it's been in excess of five years since the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- boards have met jointly.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It was kind of stopped when one
commissioner kept -- because I was there, you know, and -- kept
complaining, and exactly how much money are you getting from the
CRA on Fifth Avenue? Where is that tax money going? What is the
budget? And at some point, we -- I think the City Council decided
January 10, 2017
Page 151
perhaps they didn't want to talk about it anymore.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to ask, are we going
to be talking about that?
MR. OCHS: We certainly can.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We can. There's another issue which is
the beach, the question about the beaches and the county contribution
to the maintenance of the beach, which I believe at this point is a
million dollars a year, and that contract is due to expire it's either this
year or next year.
MR. OCHS: Next year, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Next year, okay. So it's timely.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And there's tipping fees at our
dump, landfill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The trucking of the sand.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The sand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That will be something to discuss
also.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Beach renourishment at large.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Beach renourishment. Any other ideas,
we can give them to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You've got that all written
down, Nick?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the only other comment I had is,
again, on behalf of the staff to congratulate the board members on their
new assignment and particularly thank Commissioner Fiala for her
service as chair over the last year.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. It's been a fun
ride.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
January 10, 2017
Page 152
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's just the beginning.
MR. OCHS: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. What are you-all looking
at me for?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You usually start. Well, she
started with Burt the last time. It completely threw me off.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know. We go clockwise.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm done. Thank you-all very
much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to say your first meeting
was great. You did a good job.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a request last night at the
Republican Executive Committee that they suggested, quietly -- they
didn't say in front of the whole group -- they suggested we maybe put a
little light on the flag.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amen.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I said, you know, I don't
think we even thought about that, I'm embarrassed to tell you that, I
said, but I'll bring it up.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And somebody mentioned that
to me as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did they, really?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. All right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not while we were together.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, when housekeeping -- well, let
January 10, 2017
Page 153
me go last.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have nothing other than to
congratulate Clemson in beating Alabama.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, this is the way these
meetings start going downhill, okay? This is where it begins.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Without being disagreeable.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, right. That doesn't apply to
football.
I would like to say -- to congratulate Commissioner Fiala on what
a wonderful job she's done over the years and as chairman. It was a
pleasure to attend at least two meetings with you as the chairman. I
think they were a great experience, at least for me personally, and to
thank everyone else on the Board for your confidence in me in naming
me to be the vice chair. So I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. Well, I've got a little bit of a list.
On housekeeping, I'd like to see if -- and I think, County
Manager, you need to bring it back to us. But as long as I can
remember, these blue chairs have stayed here. And I know some of us
put phone books on it because they're pretty much -- you know, the
springs are pretty much gone, and we want to get higher, present
company excepted.
And we switch these chairs around because we want to get up.
So maybe we can take a look at -- and I'm not asking for leather. Let's
not go there. But maybe we can take a look at either renovating --
MR. OCHS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't care about the re-covering. It's
the mechanics of it.
MR. OCHS: Got it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's housekeeping.
Also, I'd like to see -- we're going to be talking a lot about
January 10, 2017
Page 154
affordable housing, and we do have a very active rental assistance
program in the county. But in conversation at our last -- with our last
commissioners, there was a question about what laws prevail. Are we
-- are we giving rental assistance and down payment assistance to
noncitizens? And I believe --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Citizens or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I believe it was you and
Commissioner Henning that said it was the will of the commission at
the time that it had to be citizens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: United States citizens --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- rather than just residents of the
county, right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. And so I guess we need to
understand that, and I think this is things we need to really be very
clear. Which prevails, federal law when we receive this money, or is it
our ordinance? Does that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Your federal law would prevail, and I think
all they need to be is legal residents.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So that's out.
So then what I'd like to know, over the course of the last year,
how many teachers, nurses, deputies, college graduates, policemen, et
cetera, have received assistance from county for rental assistance. I
really want to know. I want to start getting a handle on who we're
giving this money to.
Then on a final note, I'm awed by the task of looking at the rural
lands and planning the eastern lands. I mean, there's -- and I'm not
saying this disrespectfully, but there's not one urban planner among us.
And I'm wondering if it would be beneficial -- and I'm asking, again --
to bring in developers -- you know, not the consultants but the
developers -- the Kitsons of the world and the Duanys who designed
January 10, 2017
Page 155
an award-winning program in South Carolina -- to speak to us about
how they approached and the pros and cons and the challenges they've
had in developing the properties they have.
And, you know, Kitson comes to mind because of Babcock
Ranch.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So if this is of interest, I mean, we can
just turn it over to our county manager and see how we proceed here.
There is also a gentleman who I met prior to this new board
meeting that we need to get down here, John Rood, who is a developer
of affordable housing, which basically doesn't mean it goes into your
neighborhood. It means he will come in -- and there's a whole process
and a concept that was very educational, and I'd like to see if we can
bring him back. Are we open for this?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. And I think that's
pretty much where I'm going to go except to say I sure hope we start
looking at 41 and development on either side however it is. And I do
not need to overload growth management but, boy, oh, boy, we really
do -- besides of this area, I mean, the Naples Park, this whole -- it's just
prime to start taking a look at it; what do we want -- what do we want
this to become? And I don't think it's what it is right today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Road -- when you have a road map,
you know which road to travel. And without anything --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Speak into the microphone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You need a road map to know which
way to travel. Without a road map, you don't know where you're
going, how to get there, and what it will look like once you've
accomplished getting there. So that's my point, and thank you for
those comments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And then, finally, I forgot, there
January 10, 2017
Page 156
is a poster contest that has been juried, and they're wonderful posters,
and they've done this before. They've displayed them downstairs. I'm
sorry I don't have the material with me. And if they're okay with it, it
will be downstairs, and it's from children from our schools. And if we
could have that -- we're okay to have that displayed?
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And that's it.
MR. OCHS: Got it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I was long-winded; sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I make one little
comment?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Since -- because you brought
up the rural lands -- and I'm all about gathering as much information as
we possibly can as we go through that.
I did share at the workshop last week that I spent two years on
that review committee, so I do have a level of intimacy that is higher
than a lot of folks, certainly not the folks at our staff and such.
And I do have a public announcement, and I'd like to congratulate
the band members of Palmetto Ridge. They were invited and are
attending the inauguration coming up and funding -- they -- I don't
know if you recall or not, but they received some national advertising,
and they were raising close to $140,000. And by one little news blip,
they picked up the money, and I'd like to congratulate those folks,
those kids. There's, I think, 100 and -- almost 200 kids that are getting
--
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's fully funded, according to the
meeting last night.
January 10, 2017
Page 157
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Fully funded, yes, yes, yes.
Any additional funds that are coming in -- so don't stop donating -- are
assisting with meals and such to help feed the kids while they're up
there. So it's a pretty exciting time for the kids at Palmetto Ridge.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Well, hearing no other
comments, any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We'll adjourn.
*****
**** Commissioner McDaniel moved, seconded by Commissioner
Taylor and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1 – Continued to the February 14, 2017 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO HOLD A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATING AN
UNIMPROVED 30-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
DESCRIBED AS “AVENUE B” AND A PORTION OF AN
UNIMPROVED 30-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
DESCRIBED AS “FIRST STREET,” ACCORDING TO THE COL-
LEE-CO TERRACE SUBDIVISION PLAT, AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 32 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 BETWEEN
FREDERICK STREET AND PALM STREET IN SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
January 10, 2017
Page 158
Item #16A2
THE RELEASE OF THREE CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS
WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $161,015.18 FOR PAYMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,565.18 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS ENTITLED THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. KATHERINE SHEFFIELD. CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NOS. CEV20100006169,
CENA20100006172 AND CEPM20100008671 RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 660 29TH STREET SW, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA – VIOLATIONS FOR UNLICENSED AND
INOPERABLE VEHICLES AND TRAILERS AND BROUGHT
INTO COMPLIANCE ON APRIL 1, 2011
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR VERCELLI PHASE 2B, PL20150000399, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION
CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 FOUND THE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A4
THE RANKING ORDER OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
January 10, 2017
Page 159
TOP RANKED FIRM OF CARDNO, INC., PURSUANT TO
SOLICITATION NO. 16-6700 DESIGN AND RELATED
SERVICES FOR THE STAN GOBER MEMORIAL BRIDGE
REPAIR/REHABILITATION PROJECT NUMBER 66066
(BRIDGE NUMBER 030184) AND IN THE EVENT THAT AN
AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED WITH THIS FIRM, TO
CONTINUE NEGOTIATING WITH THE REMAINING FIRMS IN
THE ORDER RANKED, WITH A PROPOSED AGREEMENT
BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AT A
SUBSEQUENT MEETING
Item #16A5
THE RANKING OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
TOP RANKED FIRM OF AMERICAN CONSULTING
PROFESSIONALS, LLC, PURSUANT TO SOLICITATION NO.
16-7010 DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES FOR CR-846/
IMMOKALEE RD OVER GATOR CANAL BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT OR REHABILITATION PROJECT NUMBER
66066 (BRIDGE NUMBER 030160) AND IN THE EVENT THAT
AN AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED WITH THIS FIRM,
TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATING WITH THE REMAINING
FIRMS IN THE ORDER RANKED, WITH A PROPOSED
AGREEMENT BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR ITS
CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING
Item #16A6
THE RANKING ORDER OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
January 10, 2017
Page 160
TOP RANKED FIRM OF CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC.,
PURSUANT TO SOLICITATION NO. 16-7011 DESIGN AND
RELATED SERVICES FOR PALM RIVER BOULEVARD OVER
PALM RIVER CANAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
#66066 (BRIDGE NUMBER 034046) AND IN THE EVENT THAT
AN AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED WITH THIS FIRM,
TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATING WITH THE REMAINING
FIRMS IN THE ORDER RANKED, WITH A PROPOSED
AGREEMENT BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR ITS
CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING
Item #16A7
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A CASH BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $25,000 TO CYPRESS WOODS GOLF &
COUNTRY CLUB WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY
FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER PL20120000873 FOR
WORK ASSOCIATED WITH CYPRESS WOODS GOLF &
COUNTRY CLUB – LOCATED OFF OF IMMOKALEE ROAD,
EAST OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF TRACT 3, GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 20 REPLAT, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20160000628 – LOCATED AT THE END OF 20TH
AVE NW, OFF WILSON BLVD
Item #16A9
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF OYSTER HARBOR
January 10, 2017
Page 161
AT FIDDLER’S CREEK PHASE 1 – REPLAT 2, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20160002690 – LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF US 41, ON SANDPIPER DRIVE
Item #16A10
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SAVANNAH AT NAPLES
RESERVE (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160002827), TO
APPROVE THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND TO APPROVE THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY – THE
DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A11
THE CONVEYANCE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT FROM THE
MOORINGS, INCORPORATED, TO CAPTURE THE TURN
LANE, SIDEWALK AND IRRIGATION MAIN THAT WAS
CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY’S RIGHT-OF-
WAY BY THE HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY/AIRPORT PULLING ROAD OVERPASS
(COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM 16.A.12) – FOLIO
#13170001528
Item #16A12
A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
January 10, 2017
Page 162
AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE MOORINGS, INCORPORATED FOR LANDSCAPE
AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (COMPANION TO
AGENDA ITEM 16.A.11)
Item #16A13
A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR
COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES AND INLETS ANNUAL
MONITORING FOR 2017 UNDER CONTRACT NO. 15-6382,
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER FOR A NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT OF $182,840 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS
EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – MONITORING IS
REQUIRED BY FDEP PERMIT AND RESULTS ARE USED TO
EVALUATE, RECOMMEND AND PRIORITZE ANNUAL
BEACH SEGMENT RENOURISHMENT
Item #16A14
AN EXTENSION OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY
FOR CONTRACTOR LICENSING BY COLLIER COUNTY –
EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY 6, 2022
Item #16A15
AN AFTER THE FACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CB&I
ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. (CB&I),
MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHMENT UNDER
January 10, 2017
Page 163
CONTRACT NO. 15-6382, TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 66 DAYS
TO COMPLETE THE FINAL REPORT FOR THE PROJECT –
EXTENDING THE COMPLETION DATE TO JANUARY 13, 2017
Item #16A16
RATIFYING AN AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT TO THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AGREEMENT NUMBER 4600003312 TO EXTEND THE
PROJECT TIMELINE FOR EIGHT MONTHS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION OF THE LELY AREA
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WINGSOUTH
AIRPARK CHANNELS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #51101.
THIS ITEM HAS NO NEW FISCAL IMPACT
Item #16A17
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A FEE SIMPLE
PROPERTY (PARCEL 101FEE) REQUIRED FOR THE
IMMOKALEE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(PROJECT #60143). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $456,200 –
FOR 28.14 ACRES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF CARSON
ROAD AND LINCOLN BOULEVARD
Item #16C1
THE RANK ORDER OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #16-6639,
“VARIABLE TDS REVERSE OSMOSIS CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN” (PROJECT #70104), AND DIRECT STAFF TO BEGIN
NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NUMBER ONE
January 10, 2017
Page 164
RANKED FIRM, CH2M – FOR A FUTURE DESIGN-BUILD
PROJECT THAT WILL RECONFIGURE THE NCRWTP TO
TREAT GROUNDWATER OF VARYING TDS CONDITIONS
Item #16C2
AN INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND THE FLORIDA
GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY, ALLOWING THE
FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY TO
PROVIDE INTERIM WASTEWATER SERVICE TO THE
PROPOSED FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT SERVICE CENTER
AND THE CIRCLE K – FOR THE NEW FPL SERVICE CENTER
IS PLANNED AT 4105 15TH AVENUE SW AND THE CIRCLE K
AT 4015 PINE RIDGE ROAD
Item #16D1
THE CERTIFICATION OF CREDENTIALS – SINGLE LIBRARY
ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD TO UPDATE THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED FY2016-2017 STATE AID TO LIBRARIES GRANT
APPLICATION – REPLACING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
MEMORANDUM NOW THAT THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR’S
POSITION HAS BEEN FILLED
Item #16D2
EXECUTING ONE LANDLORD PAYMENT AGREEMENT,
ALLOWING THE COUNTY TO ADMINISTER THE RAPID RE-
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM
THROUGH THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT
January 10, 2017
Page 165
PROGRAM – ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH NR
CONTRACTORS, INC.
Item #16D3
AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 16-7029 TO RE CRAWFORD
CONSTRUCTION, LLC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $394,476.68 FOR
THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF “THE IMMOKALEE
FITNESS CENTER,” AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE CONTRACT – LOCATED AT THE
IMMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX
Item #16D4
RECOGNIZING FY 2016/2017 FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 REVENUE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $364,222 AWARDED TO COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION FOR
THE RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING
ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – FUNDS WILL
BE USED TO OFFSET THE OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR THE
IMMOKALEE CIRCULATOR
Item #16D5
A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH
RICHMOND PARK INVESTORS, LLC TO PROVIDE A TIME
EXTENSION TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER OF THE
RICHMOND PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO COMPLY
WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS TO
ACQUIRE CONSERVATION LAND ACCEPTABLE TO THE
January 10, 2017
Page 166
COUNTY FOR OFFSITE MITIGATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE
TO PAYMENT OF MONEY AND TO POST PERFORMANCE
SECURITY – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E1
SUBMITTAL OF AN EMS MATCHING GRANT APPLICATION
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR THE
PURCHASE OF 20 POWER STRETCHERS FOR A TOTAL OF
$275,416 (MATCH $68,854)
Item #16E2
THE ADDITION OF THREE CLASSIFICATIONS AND THE
RECLASSIFICATION OF ONE POSITION IN THE 2017 FISCAL
YEAR PAY & CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM
OCTOBER 1, 2016 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 2017-01: A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
SENATOR KATHLEEN PASSIDOMO FOR USE OF COUNTY-
OWNED OFFICE SPACE – LOCATED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SUITE #203
Item #16E4
RESOLUTION 2017-02: A DISTRICT OFFICE LEASE WITH
CONGRESSMAN FRANCIS ROONEY FOR USE OF COUNTY-
OWNED OFFICE SPACE - LOCATED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SUITE #105
January 10, 2017
Page 167
Item #16E5
APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY
THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE
ORDERS, SURPLUS PROPERTY AND OTHER ITEMS AS
IDENTIFIED – COVERING THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 22,
2016 - DECEMBER 20, 2016 FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND
NOVEMEBER 22, 2016 - DECEMBER 19, 2016 FOR THE
SURPLUS REPORT
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2017-03: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F2
THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 13, 2016 BCC
MEETING. A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING
$100,000 FROM PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION (PBSD)
STREET LIGHTING FUND 778 RESERVES FOR FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION TO THE STREET LIGHTING FIELD COST
CENTER 182701 FOR THE ADDITION OF 3 STREET LIGHT
POLES AND FIXTURES; REPLACEMENT OF METAL HALIDE
FIXTURES ON THE EXISTING LIGHTS; AND REPLACING
THE CURRENT METAL HALIDE BULBS WITH PLUG AND
PLAY LED BULBS ON THE POLES ON GULF PARK DR.
January 10, 2017
Page 168
Item #16F3
AWARD ITB #16-7019 - PRINTING OF VISITOR GUIDES TO
GRAPHIC REPRODUCTIONS, INC. FOR THE TOURISM
DIVISION TO PRINT THE 2017 COLLIER COUNTY VISITOR
GUIDES FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $52,448.00
AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ACTION PROMOTES
TOURISM
Item #16G1
STAFF’S ASSESSMENT REGARDING AN UNSOLICITED
PROPOSAL FOR SCHEDULED AIR CHARTER SERVICE FROM
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT TO KEY WEST –
SERVICES WITH EXEC AIR, INC. OF NAPLES A CURRENT T-
HANGER TENANT AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT
Item #16J1
THE USE OF $3,000 FROM THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS
TO SUPPORT 31ST NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
PREVENTING CRIME IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY
(ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE)
Item #16J2
PURSUANT TO THE BOARD’S PURCHASING ORDINANCE
2013-69, AS AMENDED, REQUEST THAT THE BOARD
APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR
INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD
January 10, 2017
Page 169
TRANSACTIONS AS OF JANUARY 4, 2017
Item #16J3
RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN DECEMBER 1 TO DECEMBER
28, 2016 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J4
APPROVAL OF THE OUTSTANDING INVOICES FROM
BUDDY QUARLES/BQ CONCRETE, LLC, WHICH HAVE BEEN
APPROVED BY COUNTY STAFF, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CLERK TO MAKE PAYMENT(S) AS NECESSARY TO BUDDY
QUARLES/BQ CONCRETE, LLC REGARDING OUTSTANDING
PAYMENT REQUESTS. THE CLERK’S OFFICE HAS
EXTENSIVELY AUDITED THE INVOICES AND WILL
COMPLETE OUR AUDIT AND NEGOTIATIONS FOR
SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS BY THE CLERK AGAINST BUDDY
QUARLES/BQ CONCRETE – PERTAINING TO INVOICES IN
THE AMOUNT OF $185,617.17
Item #16K1
A PROPOSED STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,200 FOR PARCEL 161TCE IN THE CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ROBERT E. WILLIAMS, TR.,
ET AL., CASE NO. 14-CA-816, REQUIRED FOR THE
January 10, 2017
Page 170
EXPANSION OF COLLIER BLVD. FROM GREEN BLVD. TO
GOLDEN GATE BLVD., PROJECT NO. 68056. (FISCAL
IMPACT: $890)
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2017-04: RE-APPOINTING ROBERT CRAIG,
JOEL ANTHONY DAVIS AND RONALD GILBERT TO THE
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO TWO-YEAR TERMS EXPIRING DECEMBER
31, 2018
Item #16K3 (Commissioner Solis abstained)
RESOLUTION 2017-05: APPOINTING MATTHEW H. NOLTON
TO THE CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD TO FILL A
VACANT SEAT THAT WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 2018
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2017-06: APPOINTING LYNNE C. NORDHOFF
TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD TO A FOUR-YEAR
TERM EXPIRING ON DECEMBER 31, 2020
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2017-07: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED
BUDGET
January 10, 2017
Page 171
Item #17B
THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 24, 2017 MEETING.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE BY RESOLUTION AN
INTEGRATION AGREEMENT INCORPORATING THE TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST ORANGE TREE
UTILITY COMPANY ("OTU"), ORANGETREE ASSOCIATES
AND RELATED PARTIES IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER
DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO TRANSFER WATER AND
WASTEWATER ASSETS TO THE COUNTY, AFTER BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONER CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL
OF SUCH TRANSFER AT A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
REQUIRED BY FLORIDA LAW
*****
January 10, 2017
Page 172
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:48 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
________________________________________
PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
__________________________
These minutes approved by the Board on ______________________,
as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC.