BCC Minutes 03/22-23/2005 R
March 22-23, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 22, 2005
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 district as has 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: Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ti"'"
~,
'~
"
"^'-.." ....
. ~"~"
AGENDA
March 22, 2005
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Vice-Chairman, District 2
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENT A TION OF
THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS
DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT
ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC
PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
Page 1
March 22, 2005
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
Approved and/or Adopted with changes - 5/0
B. February 22, 2005 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Approved - 5/0
C. March 1, 2005 - BCCI Airport Authority Workshop
Approved - 5/0
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 25 Year Attendees
1) Mary Jo Thurston, Utility Billing & Customer Service
Presented
B. 30 Year Attendees
Page 2
March 22, 2005
, '... ,- -- . '-'-'-'-~-"'-"'~'''' M_ ___......w,."_______
1) Henry Bickford, Transportation Road Maintenance
Presented
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to declare the month of April 2005, as Call Before You Dig
Month. To be accepted by Mr. Lynn Daffron from Sprint and Mr. Al
VanderMeulen of Public Utilities Division's Locate section.
Adopted - 5/0
B. Proclamation to designate the month of April 2005, as Sexual Assault
Awareness Month and to include Thursday, April 7,2005, as Sexual
Assault Awareness Day. To be accepted by Jamie Willis, S.A.P.E.
Coordinator.
Adopted - 5/0
C. Proclamation to designate the month of April as Water Conservation
Month. To be accepted by Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director.
Adopted - 5/0
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Janet Go, Recycling Coordinator, Solid
Waste Management, as Employee of the Month for March 2005.
Presented
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Camille Merilus to discuss the establishment of a
branch foundation for Haiti Development in Naples.
B. Public Petition request by Skip Freeman to discuss The Everglades
Conservation Club.
Item 7 and 8 to he heard at 9:00 a.m. on March 23. 2005. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-04-AR-6278,
Page 3
March 22, 2005
Dominick Amico of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., representing the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners requesting approval of
Conditional Use for a Community Park as an essential service, pursuant to
Section 2.01.03.G.3.a of the Land Development Code (LDC) to construct a
Community Park with 75 boat trailer parking spaces, 21 vehicular parking
spaces, and a boat launch facility on an undeveloped tract of land. In
conjunction with the boat launch facility, the petitioner wishes to construct
a pavilion with playground, a fishing platform, and boat docks. The
property to be considered for the conditional use is located at the southern
terminus of Goodland Drive West in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range
27 East in Collier County (Goodland), Florida.
B. This item to be heard immediately followin!! Item 8B (which is
scheduled to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. on March 22, 2005). This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. CU-2004-AR-6625 EcoVenture
Wiggins Pass, Ltd., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, ofRW A
Consulting, Inc., and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette,
Coleman & Johnson, requesting a Conditional Use of the C-4 zoning
district for a Hotel & Spa per Chapter 2.04.03 of the Land Development
Code. The subject property, consisting of 10.45 acres, is located at 13635
Vanderbilt Drive in Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and Ex Parte
Disclosure be provided by Commission members. V A-2004-AR-7003,
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., represented by Brent Moore,
AICP, of Wilson Miller, Inc., requests a I-foot after-the-fact variance from
the required 5-foot wide sidewalk standard provided in Section 6.06.02 of
the Land Development Code (LDC) to allow the continued use of the
existing 4-foot wide sidewalks located within the Carson Lakes Subdivision
Phase II.
D. This item was continued from the March 8, 2005 BCC meetin!! and is
to be heard at the continuation of the March 22, 2005 BCC Meetin!! to
be held on March 23, 2005. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members
CU-2003-AR-4326: Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus represented by Ronald F.
Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, requesting Conditional Use approval in the
Village Residential (VR) zoning district for a church or house of worship
Page 4
March 22, 2005
for the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church pursuant to LDC Sections 2.04.03,
Table 2 and 10.08.00. Property is an 0.69-acre tract located at 305 3rd
Street South, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee,
Florida. (COMPANION ITEM TO V A-2003-AR-4327)
E. This item was continued from the March 8, 2005 BCC meetin!! and is
to be heard at the continuation of the March 22, 2005 BCC Meetin!! to
be held on March 23, 2005. This item requires that all participants to
be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. V A-2003-AR-4327: Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus, (regarding the
Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church), represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of
Vanasse Daylor, request the following variances in the VR zoning district
for a Conditional Use (LDC S4.02.02.E.): 1) from the minimum one-acre
lot area; to allow an existing structure on an 0.69 acre tract to be converted
to a church use; 2) to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet
to 20 feet; 3) to reduce the required 33 parking spaces to 19 spaces (LDC
S4.04.04.G. Table 17); and; 4) to reduce the landscape buffer on the north
and south property lines from the required IS-foot type "B," to allow a 10-
foot wide type "B" buffer (LDC S4.06.02 Table 24). Property is located at
305 3rd Street South, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East,
Immokalee, Florida. (COMPANION ITEM TO CU-2003-AR-4326)
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be continued to the April 12, 2005 BCC Meetin!!.
Recommendation to Approve an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 92-
60 Relating to Tourist Development Taxes, as Amended, to expand the use
of Category C-2 uses to include Municipal Owned Museums; to change the
percentages ofC-I& C-2 uses and to enable the use of surplus Tourist Tax
Funds for additional promotion.
B. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. on March 22, 2005. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. This item to be heard immediately
followin!! Item 7B. PUDZ-2004-AR-5967 EcoVenture Wiggins Pass,
LTD., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, ofRW A, Inc. and Richard
D. Yovanovich, Esquire, ofGoodlette, Coleman & Johnson requesting a
rezone from the C-4 zoning district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development
zoning district to be known as the Coconilla PUD. The proposed change
would allow for 95 dwelling units in two residential towers with 10 floors
Page 5
March 22, 2005
of residential units over one floor of parking, a public use tract adjacent to
Cocohatchee River Park and a marina basin containing 29 wet slips. The
property is located at 13635 Vanderbilt Drive in Section 17, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.45:1: acres.
C. Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Amending Ordinance 04-12, the
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Section Four, Exemptions
and Exclusions from Certificate Requirements and Providing for an
Effective Date.
D. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida applying the Annual Mid-Cycle
Indexing adjustments to amend the General Government Buildings Impact
Fee rate schedule.
E. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land
development regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County,
Florida, by providing for: Section one, recitals; Section two, findings of
fact; Section three, adoption of amendments to the Land Development
Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter 6 - infrastructure
improvements and adequate public facilities requirements, including Sec.
6.06.02 sidewalk, bike lane, and greenway requirements; Chapter 10 _
application, review, and decision-making procedures, including Sec.
1 0.02.03.b.1. final site development plan procedure and requirements;
Section four, conflict and severability; Section five, inclusion in the Collier
County Land Development Code; and Section six, effective date.
F. Petition SNR-2004-AR-6950, Vanderbilt Beach Property Owner's
Association, represented by Arthur T. Sweatman, requesting a street name
change from Willett A venue to Willet A venue for property located in
Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, Block N, in Section 32,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
G. This item will be heard at the March 23, 2005 BCC Meetin!!. This item
has been continued from the February 22, 2005 BCC Meetin!!. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2003- AR-4942-
Conquest Development USA, LC, requesting a PUD to PUD rezone for
Page 6
March 22, 2005
property located on the East Side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and
approximately 1 3/4 Miles South of Tamiami Trail (Us 41), further
described as Silver Lakes, in Section 10 & 15, Township 51 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award a $7,596,000 construction contract to Vanderbilt
Bay Construction for the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Parking
Garage, project 90295, and approve the necessary budget amendments to
include commercial financing. (Len Price, Administrator, Administrative
Services and Ron Hovell, Principal Project Manager, Facilities
Management)
B. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. on March 22, 2005. Recommendation
to review the Written and Oral Reports of the Advisory Boards and
Committees scheduled for review in 2005 in accordance with Ordinance
No. 2001-55, including the Coastal Advisory Committee, Collier County
Planning Commission, Disaster Recovery Task Force, Ochopee Fire
Control District Advisory Committee, and Smart Growth Advisory
Committee. (Winona Stone, Assistant to the County Manager)
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation to acquire
the right-of-way necessary for the widening of Collier Boulevard from two
lanes to six lanes between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution opposing enactment into law
proposed House Bill 1173 and Senate Bill 2302 relating to new regulations
controlling the implementation, collection and expenditure of impact fees
Page 7
March 22, 2005
by local governments that will have a detrimental effect on the county's
ability to provide necessary and required growth-related capital
improvements (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services Division)
E. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution supporting enactment into law
proposed Florida Senate Bill 1940 and House Bill 1461 relating to statutory
provisions controlling the distribution and expenditure of gasoline tax
proceeds. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution opposing enactment into law
proposed House Bill 1251 and Senate Bill 2424 deleting the existing
statutory provision that waives a referendum to levy ad valorem taxes for
providing municipal services within a municipal service taxing unit.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
G. Recommendation to make a conditional award of Bid #05-3756 to Mitchell
& Stark Construction Company for the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) Lower Hawthorn Wells 18N, 19N, and 20N
Pumping and Transmission Facilities, in the amount of$5,156,000.00,
subject to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP)
approval, authorization to incur costs, and authorization for the Board to
execute the subject construction contract as required by provisions of the
low interest rate State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan program which will
fund this contract, Project Number 71006. (Jim DeLony, Administrator,
Public Utilities)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 12:00 noon on March 22, 2005. Closed
Attorney-Client Session pursuant to Section 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., to
discuss strategy related to litigation in the pending case of Collier County v.
Department of Community Affairs and City of Naples, Case No. 04-
1048GM, pending in the State of Florida Division of Administrative
Hearings and the Second District Court of Appeals Case No. 2DCA#2D05-
392.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Page 8
March 22, 2005
A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. on March 22, 2005. To present to the
Board of County Commissioners the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the Fiscal Year ended September 30,2004. A copy of the Report
is on display in the County Manager's Office, W. Harmon Turner Building,
2nd Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Approved and/or Adopted w/Changes - 5/0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve petition A VESMT2003-AR5314 to
vacate, renounce and disclaim the easements for public road right of
ways recorded by separate instruments in the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida, located in the Summit Place development in
Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
Resolution 2005-116
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Leo A. Tegethoffand Shirley R. Tegethoff for 5.54 acres under
the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $76,300.
Parcels located in Golden Gate Estates, Unit 53
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of "Southwest Professional
Health Park". The roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained.
Resolution 2005-117
Page 9
March 22, 2005
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of "Berkshire Pines Phase
One". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
Resolution 2005-118
5) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
"Briarwood Unit Eleven", approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
With stipulations
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Madison
Park Phase Two", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
With stipulations
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), approve the 2004
Annual Report of the CRA, direct staff to file the annual report with
the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and direct staff to publish
notice of filing the report.
As detailed in the Executive Summary
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Fiddler's Creek, Phase 2A Golf Course.
With the release of the Utilities Performance Security
9) Recommendation for the approval of the amended recently approved
Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List and direction for staff to
actively pursue the added A-category property (McIntosh Trust).
As detailed in the Executive Summary
10) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
"Heritage Bay", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenarice Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
With stipulations
Page 10
March 22, 2005
11) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution creating the Habitat
Conservation Plan Advisory Committee.
Resolution 2005-119
12) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2-11.
Resolution 2005-120
13) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Quarry
Phase 1", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
With stipulations
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Parcel No. 103B
required for the construction of a storm water retention and treatment
pond necessary for the widening of County Barn Road from Davis
Blvd. to CR-864. (Project No. 60101, Capital Improvement Element
No. 33). Fiscal Impact: $126,950.00.
2) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Parcel Nos. 119, 719 and
719A required for the construction of the six-laning of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) from Golden Gate Boulevard to
Immokalee Road. (Project No. 65061, Capital Improvement Element
No. 37). Fiscal Impact: $201,500.00.
As detailed in the Executive Summary
3) Recommendation to approve award of Bid #05-3692, "Traffic
Operations Signal Components" to multiple vendors (category basis).
Awarded to Traffic Products, Inc.; Specialty Lighting Solutions;
Temple, Inc.; Traffic Parts, Inc.; and Transportation Control
Systems
4) Recommendation to approve two (2) Adopt-A-Road Agreements for
the following: Golden Gate Realty & Development, Inc. and Crystal
Lake R.V. Park.
Page 11
March 22, 2005
5) Recommendation to approve Amendment No.3 to extend the time
and amount of the Contract for Professional Services Agreement by
PBS&J, Inc., for the Goodlette-Frank Road Improvement Project,
from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road, Project No. 60134.
(Fiscal impact $152,197.00)
Schedule project completion is March 28, 2005, with additional
days still pending
6) Recommendation to (1) approve rescinding a Resolution No. 2004-
211 for a Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement with the State
Department of Transportation in the amount of$262,500.00 for the
purchase and installation of a prefabricated pedestrian bridge within
the C.R. 951 right-of-way over the Golden Gate outfall canal: and (2)
approve a Resolution approving, and authorizing the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to execute the Resolution for the
same funds to be used for the construction of water crossings located
over the Santa Barbara Canal located on Golden Gate Parkway (CR
886); (3) authorize the advance of the $262,500.00 and the County's
contribution of$75,000 for Design and $37,500.00 for Construction
from the Gas Tax Fund and (4) approve future fiscal annual costs of
the bridges maintenance and all necessary budget amendments.
Resolution 2005-121
7) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3771 "Secretarial Services for
Advisory Committee Meetings" to Manpower Temporary Services.
For MSTU Meetings at an estimated annual expenditure of
$25,000
8) Recommendation to approve the updated "Collier County Landscape
Beautification Master Plan" and revised schedule for fiscal years 2006
and 2007.
As detailed in the Executive Summary
9) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to transfer
$1,354,447.90 between budgeted projects as part of a mid-year
Stormwater Management program adjustment to fund both Capital
Improvement and regular Maintenance projects under Fund (301).
As detailed in the Executive Summary
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
Page 12
March 22,2005
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
Resolution 2005-122
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
Resolution 2005-123
3) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction for a certain Water
and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreement. Fiscal impact is $10.00
to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
With Patricia A. Hutchinson
4) Recommendation to approve an Engineering Professional Services
Agreement with Owen Ayres & Associates, Inc. under RFP #04-3723,
Project #725163, in the amount of$167,000 and to approve a Budget
Amendment to transfer funds among Work Breakdown Structure
Elements within Project 72516.
To optimize and conserve public irrigation and potable water
resources
5) Recommendation to approve three (3) Work Orders under RFQ #03-
3522, "Testing Services for Inflow and Infiltration Study," with
Advanced Underground Imaging, LLC and Severn Trent
Environmental Services, Inc. under the North County Inflow and
Infiltration Study Project, Project Number 725021, in the total amount
of $266,357.96, and approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$93,747.96
As detailed in the Executive Summary
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award bid #05-3720 to multiple vendors for
purchase and delivery of fertilizer at an estimated annual expenditure
Page 13
March 22, 2005
of$150,000.
Awarded to Pro Source One, Helena Chemical Company,
Regenerated Resources, and Lesco, Inc. as primary, secondary,
and tertiary vendors for a term of two years
2) Recommendation to approve the attached Application and
Certification of Application, and for the Chairman to sign, permitting
the Collier County Public Library to apply for a $500,000 State
Construction Grant for the South Regional Library.
As detailed in the Executive Summary
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
revenue in the amount of $16,400 from an insurance payment
covering damage to the boardwalk at Barefoot Beach Preserve.
Damage done from Hurricane Charley repaired by Professional
Building Systems
4) Recommendation to approve a modification in the amount of $25,000
to Purchase Order #4500035141 with Naples Wholesale Bait, extend
the sole source vendor designation through September 2006, and
approve a seven-day payment schedule.
For the sale of live bait shrimp to patrons at Caxambas Park
Marina
5) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached "Let's Talk
About It: Jewish Literature" grants application to the American
Library Association for a series of book discussion programs. Request
that the BCC authorize the Library Director to sign this grant
application.
As detailed in the Executive Summary
6) Recommendation to approve a Pubic Parking License Agreement with
Royal Palm Country Club of Naples, Inc. to provide parking for the
County-operated baseball field located on Warren Street at a cost of
$50 for recording the Agreement.
As detailed in the Executive Summary
7) Recommendation to approve the Lease Agreement with Southwest
Heritage, Inc., as amended, for use of the Naples Railroad Depot as a
branch facility of the Collier County Museum.
Page 14
March 22, 2005
As detailed in the Executive Summary
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to Lease
Agreement with Senator Burt Saunders for the continued use of office
space for three years for a total revenue of$30.
For a term ending January 2,2008
2) Recommendation to reject all responses received under Bid 05-3776,
Fasteners and Wheel Weights for Fleet.
To reissue as a bid
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the
Commission Chairman to execute Deed Certificates for the sale of
burial plots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the
2005 calendar year.
Resolution 2005-124
4) Recommendation to reject all responses to RFP #05-3748, Onsite
Primary Care Services.
5) Recommendation to declare certain county-owned property as surplus,
authorize a sale of the surplus property on April 9, 2005, and
authorize the donation of certain surplus property to Reachout
Everglades and COPS Association, Inc.
As detailed in the Executive Summary
6) Recommendation to approve the award of Bid #No. 05-3764 for the
repair, parts and service of air conditioning equipment to Hill York
Service Corp. and United Mechanical, Inc.
Annually estimated at $1,450,000
7) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
For the period of January 31,2005 through February 28, 2005
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to accept a Sovereign Submerged Lands Easement
Page 15
March 22, 2005
from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund
(Board of Trustees) for construction of a beach nourishment project
along the shoreline of Hideaway Beach on Marco Island, at a cost not
to exceed $61.
As detailed in the Executive Summary
2) Recommendation to approve a three-year contract related to RFP 05-
3772 for Collier County Tourism Web site Design and Maintenance
(Estimated maximum contract amount $92,220.00).
With Miles Media Group
3) Approval of Budget Amendment for Emergency Management.
For overtime worked in response to Hurricanes Ivan and Jeanne
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve and execute the BayshorelGateway
Triangle Redevelopment Area Executive Director Employment
Agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
and David L. Jackson.
For an annual amount of $88,000
2) Recommendation to approve and execute the site improvement grant
agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and the
grant applicant within the BayshorelGateway Triangle Redevelopment
Area.
A Residential Rehab Grant for Sharon King
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board payment to attend the
Economic Development Council of Collier County's Membership
Meeting and Mixer on March 31, 2005 to be held at the Registry
Resort & Club. This event will allow Commissioner Coletta to
represent District 5 and learn more about "The Economic Trends in
2005 and Forward" from speaker Dr. David M. Jones and interact
with other government representatives and community leaders; $35.00
to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
Page 16
March 22, 2005
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record with Action as Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners make a
determination of whether the purchases of goods and services
documented in the Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders from
February 19,2005 to March 4,2005 serve a valid public purpose and
authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said purchases. A
copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County Manager's
Office, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner
Building, Naples, Florida.
2) Recommendation to recognize $1,000,000 of Reserves in Fund 178,
Court Information Technology Fees and increase the transfer to the
Clerk of the Circuit Court in the same amount.
As detailed in the Executive Summary
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to allow
Ronald J. Echols, Ph.D., Mary W. Echols and John Cumberlidge to go
onto land recently acquired through the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee Program for geological research
purposes.
For an 80-acre parcel known as the "America's Business Park"
property
2) Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to
Parcels 128, 728 and 130 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v.
Stonebridge Country Club Community Association, Inc., et aI., Case
No. 04-3588-CA (Immokalee Road Project #66042).
Staff to deposit an additional sum of $10,400 in the Roetzel &
Andress Trust Account
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
Page 17
March 22, 2005
---...-.-'---------.--.---,-----..--.-"..,.
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-
6888 MDG Capital Corporation, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of
Hole, Montes, Inc., is requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) for a project
known as the Arrowhead PUD for the purpose of amending the PUD
document to change the PUD type to a Mixed Use PUD, change the
residential development standards regulations, update the LDC citations,
and add language to address affordable housing commitments. The subject
property, consisting of 307.4 acres, is located at the corner of Lake Trafford
Road and the proposed Carson Road Extension, in Section 6, Township 47
South, Range 29 East; and in Section 31, Township 46 South, Range 29
East, Immokalee, Florida.
Ordinance 2005-13
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 18
March 22, 2005
---~--'^~.,--~~,_._'".,---"_.__..-
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we're now in
seSSIon.
MR. OCHS: You have a hot mike, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Do we have anyone for the invocation today, County Manager?
Will you please do the honors?
Would you please stand for the invocation?
MR. MUDD: Let us pray. Oh, Heavenly Father, we ask your
blessings on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask
a special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them
in their deliberations, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the
trials of this day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
I'd also like to bring to everyone's attention and into their
thoughts and prayers, that on March 24th, 2004 (sic), it marks the
one-year anniversary of -- excuse me, March 24th, 2004, Sergeant
First Class Wentz 1. Shanaberger, III, was killed in action in Iraq. He
was a member of our community of Collier County, and I'd like
everyone to keep him in your thoughts and prayers as this one-year
anniversary passes, and keep his family, his wife, Corey, and his
children in your prayers as they try to deal with their loss of a
wonderful husband and dad.
And your will be done, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
Page 2
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, do you have any
comments concerning today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Just one. Patrick White, are you here?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Patrick's going to make a note for the
record in regard to an item which is going to be continued.
MR. WHITE: Good morning. Assistant County Attorney,
Patrick White. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, today we were
scheduled to hear the second of two matters pertaining to the special
LDC cycle for sidewalks, and I just wanted to note on the record that
we will be continuing that matter until tomorrow at nine a.m. in these
chambers, and I will make a similar announcement tomorrow at the
time, and at that time enter into the record the Affidavit of Publication
that is the official notice of the hearing for today.
And just in order to be sure that we were not going to have any
challenges, we're just putting this on the record today. I appreciate
your indulgence.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Is that all, County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the agenda
changes, Board of County Commissioner's meeting, March 22nd,
2005.
First item is to withdraw item 6B. That was a public petition
request by Skip Freeman to discuss the Everglades Conservation Club,
and that withdrawal was at the petitioner's request.
The next item is item 8B. This item will be heard at one p.m. on
22 March 2005. The title on the agenda index incorrectly states, this
Page 3
March 22-23, 2005
item will be heard immediately following item 7B.
So the order on that particular item is, 8B will be heard starting at
one o'clock followed by 7B. That's at staffs request.
The next item is item 8E. The title on the agenda index for this
item incorrectly makes reference to greenways and should be
removed. It is not part of the LDC text being amended. The backup
material is correct, and that's at staffs request.
Next item is item 10D on page 3. In the paragraph labeled one,
the letter E was skipped. This has been corrected, and the original
document to be signed is correct, and that correction was done at
staffs request.
The next item is item lOG. Paragraph C under considerations of
the executive summary should read: C, legal, purchasing, and/or
finance department guidance: A recommendation for a conditional
award of this project is being made because it will be funded by a low
interest rate, approximately 3 percent, State Revolving Fund Loan,
that's an SRF.
One of the specific requirements for eligibility under the SRF
program requires the RDEP provide the final approval, authorization
to incur costs, and authorization to the board to execute the
construction contract with the low responsive -- responsive
responsible bidder.
This conditional award will allow the county to secure the bid
pricing, and upon written notification by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, the board chairman may execute the
construction contract.
The county attorney's office will approve the contract prior to the
chairman's signature. This has been reviewed with the clerk's office,
and they have no issues with the approach being recommended, and
that's at staffs request.
Next item is on -- is add -- it's an add-on item, 10H, and that is a
recommendation to adopt a resolution opposing House Bill 1325 and
Page 4
March 22-23, 2005
any similar Florida statute that will severely limit all governmental
authorities from providing cable and telecommunications services as
well as acquiring, and in brackets, or even contracting with, taxpaying
water and! or wastewater entities including requiring the acquiring
government to continue to pay ad valorem and other taxes being paid
by the tax paying entity and regarding all such services that the
Florida Public Service Commission must rule in favor of the taxpaying
entity, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is item 16A 11, and it is moved to the regular
agenda and is continued to the April 12th, 2005, BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to approve resolution 2005, creating the Habitat
Conservation Plan Advisory Committee.
It was moved to the regular agenda at the request of
Commissioners Henning and Coletta. It was continued to the next
meeting, because it's probably going to be controversial and rather
lengthy, at the county manager's request, because this agenda is quite
full and having an item that's going to take about two hours on it
would just be folly. We wouldn't get to it. So we need to continue
this particular item.
The next item is item 16B 1. The purchase agreement for this
item was not attached as backup in the printed copies. All
commissioners have been provided copies of this purchase agreement,
and copies are available to the public. It will be made part of the
record, and a copy will be given to the court reporter, and that's at
staff s request.
The next item is item 16B2, and it's continued to the April 12th,
2005, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve the purchase of
parcels number 119, 719, and 719 A, required for the construction of
the six-Ianing of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, from Golden
Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road. It's project number 65061,
capital improvement element number 37, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is item 16B9. The title on the index incorrectly
Page 5
March 22-23, 2005
reads, approve a budget amendment to transfer $1,967,444.62. The
executive summary and backup material reflect the correct amount,
which is $1,354,447.90, and that correction is made at the staffs
request.
The next item is an item of note. All items under paragraph 14
and 16G on your agenda, the BCC will be acting as the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA under those matters.
The next item is to move item 16G 1 to 14A, and that is a
recommendation to approve and execute the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Redevelopment Area Executive Director Employment
Agreement between the community redevelopment agency, CRA, and
David L. Jackson, and that's at staffs request.
There's a couple -- there's a couple more issues that aren't on your
change sheet, and I'd ask for your attention on these two matters.
The next item is to move item 16B5 to 10I, and that's at staffs
request, and that item reads, it's a recommendation to approve
amendment number three to extend the time and amount of the
contract for professional services agreement by PBS&J, Inc., for the
Goodlette-Frank Road improvement project from Pine Ridge Road to
Vanderbilt Beach Road, project number 60134, fiscal impact
$152,197.
And, again, that move is at staffs request. There seems to be
some questions, and we to need to clear it up for the record.
And the next item, I was approached as I walked into my office
this morning by the two parties that have been negotiating as part of
the -- I want to make sure I get it right -- the Silver Lakes action,
which is item 8G.
They've been working to the wee hours of the night. They called
Mr. Schmitt at 9:30 last night, and they have an agreement. There are
changes to one page. And, Commissioners, that's been worked out,
and unless there's somebody that's going to speak against 8G and the
agreement that they made -- and Sue, do they have __
Page 6
March 22-23, 2005
MS. FILSON: I have no speakers so far.
MR. MUDD: Nobody speaking? This item could move back to
the summary agenda, and that's up -- that's up to the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Board members?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I just want to clarify a procedural
matter. David?
MR. WEIGEL: Go right ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With respect to this issue that the county
manager just mentioned about the possibility of moving it to the
summary agenda if there are no public speakers, at what point in time
can we make that determination?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it would be appropriate to make that
determination now so that the summary agenda would be handled with
the consent agenda. One question would be, are there changes that the
board has not seen, notwithstanding that there are no public speakers?
Any changes to that item?
MR. MUDD: There is the one sheet issue, and Mr. Nadeau will
summarize that for you if the board would like.
MR. NADEAU: Yes. For the record, Dwight Nadeau
representing both the Silver Lakes Property Owners' Association and
Conquest Development.
There is additional language related to a turnover of conservation
area. I'll read it to you, into the record, and then I will hand out sheets
to you individually.
It would be on page 88 of the PUD part of your agenda package,
and I quote, the real property described in that certain conservation
easement recorded in the Official Records Book 3242, pages 0981
through 0987, of the public records of Collier County, shall be
conveyed to the Silver Lakes Property Owners' Association, Inc., by
delivery of execution deeds on or before March 8th, 2009.
If it meets the pleasure of the board, I can give you copies of this
additional page, or the additional section.
Page 7
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is Mr. Pires here?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, he is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like Mr. Pires to come up to the mike,
and I would like for both of you to state on the record that your
respective clients have reached agreement on this issue.
MR. PIRES : Yeah. For the record, Tony Pires, representing the
Silver Lakes Property Owners' Association, and unequivocally yes, we
have reached agreement. We worked until late last night, like Mr.
Mudd indicated. Mr. Schmitt even replied about 9:30 or so last night
to our e-mails as we went back and forth.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are either of you aware of anyone who
disagrees with this agreement?
MR. PIRES: No, sir.
MR. BROCK: Not from my end, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay. What is your
pleasure? Have you finished --
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman?
MR. MUDD: If you could get with Marjorie and act on this
item, and then I'll just go over the time certains.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney. All I would like is for Mr. Nadeau to certify that the
deed references to the OR book and page are correct for the record so
we can get that PUD signed and so forth, and if there's a problem
down the road, they'd certify to its correctness. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. NADEAU: Again, Dwight Nadeau, for the record,
representing the applicants. I will certify that the citation of the
official records of Collier County is accurate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you.
Page 8
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any objection by any
commissioner to moving this to the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're moving it to summary
agenda.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there are a total of four time
certains for today.
The first time certain is at 9:30, and that is your annual -- or your
four-year report on five -- on lOB, which is five of your advisory
boards and the Planning Commission.
The next item would be -- is an 11 o'clock time certain, and that
is 13A, which is your report on the annual audit by the clerk's office.
The next item is a noon time certain, and that is a closed-door
session, and that is item 12A.
And then at one o'clock today we have items 8B and 7B, which
have to do with the two items on Coconilla. If there is anybody in the
audience today for a land use petition, anything under paragraph 7 or
paragraph 8, other than 8B or 7B, those items will be heard starting
tomorrow at nine o'clock in this chamber, okay, because the board will
continue to then.
This is a pretty -- pretty busy agenda, and we didn't want people
sitting here all day long as you work through a rather lengthy
Coconilla process this afternoon.
So any 7 A -- any paragraph 7 or 8 paragraph other -- 8 items
other than 8B or 7B will be heard tomorrow starting at nine o'clock in
these chambers.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioners, I'm going to ask you for ex-parte disclosure on
the summary agenda and for any changes to the regular agenda.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no changes on today's
Page 9
March 22-23, 2005
agenda, and as far as the summary agenda, I have no disclosures.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I have no changes on
the regular agenda. As far as the summary agenda goes, for 1 7 A I
have received e-mails, I have had meetings and phone calls, and it's in
my folder for anyone that wishes to see it.
And as far as 17B, that one I have had numerous letters, e-mails,
meetings, phone calls, and talked to staff, and it's in my folder if
anyone wishes to see it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a correction. I did meet with
the -- some individuals that were working with the Silver Lakes PUD.
Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no changes to today's
agenda. I do -- I did received an e-mail from the petitioner on 17 A,
also received an e-mail from Mr. Pires on 17B. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes. 17 A, I've
had meetings with different people regarding Arrowhead, and that was
quite a while back but I wanted to put them on the record.
And 17B, which is Silver Lakes, I've had many meetings with the
petitioner, with the residents, I've gone to their homes, and many
e-mails and phone calls as well, so that will all be on the record for
people to see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. I have
also received e-mails, I've had meetings with the petitioners of both
sides on 17B. All of my correspondence, e-mails, and meetings are
contained in my public file for 17 A and 17B.
I do have one change I would like to request. I would like to
move item G2 to the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sixteen?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, 16G2, sorry.
Page 10
March 22-23, 2005
MR. MUDD: That would be item 14B.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 14B.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is that topic?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the grant -- CRA grant award. I
merely have some procedural issues, not so much a problem with the
award itself.
MR. MUDD: That item was a recommendation to approve and
execute the site improvement grant agreement between the CRA and
the grant applicant within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Then is there a
motion to approve the agenda as revised today?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second
by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Page 11
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
March 22. 2005
Withdraw Item 6B: Public Petition request by Skip Freeman to discuss the
Everglades Conservation Club. (Petitioner request.)
Item 8B: This item will be heard at 1 :00 p.m. on March 22, 2005. The title on the
agenda index incorrectly states, "This item to be heard immediately following Item
7B". (Staff request.)
Item 8E: The title on the agenda index for this item incorrectly makes reference to
"greenways", and should be removed as it is not part of the LDC text being
amended. The backup material is correct. (Staff request.)
Item 100: On page 3 in the paragraph labeled 1., the letter (E) was skipped. This
has been corrected and the original document to be signed is correct. (Staff
request.)
Item 10G: Paragraph C under Considerations of the Executive Summary should
read: C. Legal, Purchasing, and/or Finance Department Guidance: A
recommendation for a conditional award of this project is being made because it
will be funded by a low interest rate (approximately 3%) SRF loan. One of the
specific requirements for eligibility under the SRF program, requires that the
RDEP provide the final approval, authorization to incur costs, and authorization
to the Board to execute the construction contract with the low responsive,
responsible bidder. This conditional award will allow the County to secure the bid
pricing, and upon written notification by the FDEP, the Board Chairman may
execute the construction contract. The County Attorney's Office will approve the
contract prior to the Chairman's signature. This has been reviewed with the
Clerk's Office and they have no issues with the approach being recommended."
(Staff request.)
Add On Item 10H: Recommendation to adopt a Resolution opposing House Bill
1325, and any similar Florida Statues, that will severely limit all governmental
authorities from providing cable and telecommunications services, as well as
acquiring (or even contracting with) tax-paying water and/or wastewater entities,
including requiring the acquiring government to continue to pay ad valorem and
other taxes being paid by the tax paying entity, and regarding all such services,
that the Florida Public Service Commission must rule in favor of the tax-paying
entity. (Staff request.)
Item 16A11 is moved to the reaular aaenda and is continued to the Aoril12. 2005
BCC meetina: Recommendation to approve Resolution 2005 _ creating the
Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee. (Moved - Commissioners
Henning and Coletta request.) (Continued - County Manager request.)
Item 16B1: The purchase agreement for this item was not attached as backup in
the printed copies. All Commissioners have been provided copies of this
purchase agreement and copies are available to the public. It will be made a part
of the record and a copy given to the court reporter. (Staff request.)
Item 16B2 is continued to the April 12. 2005 BCC meetina: Recommendation to
approve the purchase of Parcels Nos. 119, 719 and 719A required for the
construction of the six-Ianing of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) from Golden Gate
Boulevard to Immokalee Road. (Project No. 65061, Capital Improvement Element
No. 37). (Staff request.)
Item 16B9: The title on the index incorrectly reads ". . . approve a budget
amendment to transfer $1,967,444.62. .." The Executive Summary and backup
material reflects the correct amount which is $1,354,447.90. (Staff request.)
All Items under Paraaraph 14 and 16G - the BCC is acting as the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA.
Move item 16G1 to 14A: Recommendation to approve and execute the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area Executive Director Employment
Agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and David L.
Jackson. (Staff request.)
March 22-23, 2005
Item #2B and Item #2C
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 2005 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING AND THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 1,2005
BCC/AIRPORT AUTHORITY WORKSHOP MEETING-
MER OVEn AS ffi.ES.ENIED
Are there motions to approve the agenda, or the minutes of the
February 22nd, 2005, BCC regular meeting and the March 1st, 2005,
BCC Airport Authority workshop?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, we move on to
service awards.
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Would you like to do them from up there
or do you want to come up here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two. We'll do them from here.
MR. MUDD: Okay. We have two.
Page 12
March 22-23, 2005
The first service awardee is a 25-year employee, and that's Mary
Jo Thurston from Utility Billing and Customer Service.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mary Jo, come on up.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Shake hands with all the other
commissioners, then we'll turn around and get you a picture.
MR. MUDD: This is the hardest part, when we get all the
commissioners to smile.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now there's a five-minute speech.
Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Mary Jo.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next service award is a 30-year employee, and
that's Henry Bickford of Transportation Road Maintenance.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you a relative of Harry
Bickford?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations. Look forward
to the next 30.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for 30 years of service.
Thank you so much.
MR. MUDD: Henry, you have to smile, too, now.
Thanks, Henry.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO DECLARE THE MONTH OF APRIL 2005,
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to proclamations.
Page 13
March 22-23, 2005
The first one is 4A. It's a proclamation to declare the month of
April 2005 as Call Before You Dig Month, to be accepted by Mr.
Lynn Daffron from Sprint and Mr. Al VanderMeulen of the Public
Utilities Division, its locate section.
If you could please come forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, each year in Florida
lives are endangered and time and money are wasted, and property is
destroyed because people fail to have their underground facilities
located before engaging in excavation and demolition; and,
Whereas, Governor Jeb Bush recently issued a proclamation
endorsing protection of underground utilities and the observation (sic)
of Call Before You Dig Month, the month of April 2005; and,
Whereas, "Call Sunshine, II a one-call center that notifies
participating utility agents of planning engagement (sic) in excavation
or demolition, a free service to professional contractors as well as
homeowners to dig -- digging in their yards; and,
Whereas, Collier County advocates enforcement and compliance
of (sic) the Florida statutes and local ordinance in regarding (sic)
protection underground utility; and,
Whereas, the planning of any type of excavated demolition (sic)
should notify "Call Sunshine," and if the line must be located,
personally (sic) will be sent to mark the location of the line at no cost
to the inquiring property -- party; and,
Whereas, Collier County recognizes Collier County and the City
of Naples Underground Damage Prevention Task Force as a group of
utility providers and local government agencies that are dedicated to
protect (sic) the underground facilities and the community's
infrastructure through education and enforcement.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that the month of April 2005 be designated
as Call Before You Dig Month. Do you dig it?
Done in this order day (sic) of 22nd March, 2005.
Page 14
March 22-23, 2005
Motion to approve, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. We need a picture, if you could. You guys
have to smile, too.
Thank you. Would you like to say a couple words? That's fine
then.
MR. DAFFRON: Lynn Daffron, Collier County Task Force.
Briefly I would say that this pretty well sums it up as to what we're
aimed at and targeted at.
I will tell you that, once again, Collier County leads the way in
the state. Over the past year we have developed a citation specific for
this statute. Unfortunately when education doesn't go far enough,
sometimes law enforcement's necessary.
So in the interim, we have probably issued someplace in the
neighborhood of 250 citations in this county.
We want to prevent the citizens of Collier County from
experiencing these costly delays in services and these outages. It's
very necessary that these folks pay attention to the statute to protect
life and property. This is a very important thing, and thank you all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 15
March 22-23, 2005
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE MONTH OF APRIL
2005, AS SEXUAL AS SAUL T AWARENESS MONTH AND TO
INCLUDE THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005, AS SEXUAL ASSAULT
AWAIDThffiSSnAY-A~
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is 4B. It's a proclamation to
designate the month of April 2005 as Sexual Assault Awareness
Month, and to include Thursday, April 7th, 2005, as Sexual Assault
Awareness Day. To be accepted by Jamie Willis, S.A.P.E.
coordinator.
Jamie, if you'd come on up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're doing great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whereas, sexual assault continues to
be a major social crisis in our society; and,
Whereas, every woman faces the threat of potentially becoming a
victim; and,
Whereas, sexual assault affects every child and adult from ages 4
to 94 years of age in Collier as a victim or survivor, or as a family
member, significant other, neighbor, or co-worker of a victim or
survivor; and,
Whereas, volunteers and service providers in our community are
working to provide a continuum of care to sexual assault survivors
through 24- hour hot lines, counseling, support groups, advocacy,
medical care, and education; and,
Whereas, Project Help, Incorporated, Crisis Center seeks to
improve services for victims and survivors of sexual assault and
prevent future sexual assault through public awareness and services
for victims; and,
Whereas, this community recognizes the vital importance of
designating a time devoted to increasing the general public's
Page 16
March 22-23, 2005
awareness and supportive of agencies providing services to rape
victims; and,
Whereas, Project Help, Incorporated, Crisis Center holds forth a
vision of a community free from sexual violence.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that April 2005 be
designated as Sexual Assault Awareness Month and to include
Thursday, April 7th, as Sexual Assault Awareness Day and urge all
citizens to take part in activities and observances designed to increase
awareness of the epidemic that affects us not just on a societal level,
but a personal level as well.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of March, 2005, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve, and second by
Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank
you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to say something?
MR. MUDD: If I could get a picture first, that would be good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes. Okay.
MS. WILLIS: I'm not very good at impromptu speeches, so I had
to write mine down.
Page 1 7
March 22-23,2005
Good morning, Council, and I'd like to thank you for this
opportunity. My name is Jamie Willis, and I'm coordinator for the
rape crisis program and counselor here in Collier County. S.A.P.E.
stands for sexual assault practitioner's examination.
On behalf of Beth Canocky (phonetic), our executive director,
our wonderful board of directors, our dedicated volunteers, and all of
the incredible people that I work with at Project Help Crisis Center,
our Collier County Sheriffs Office and their fabulous detective
agency, and all of your sexual assault survivors everywhere from ages
4 to 94, again, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity.
Daily staff and volunteers hear the screams and see the anguished
tears of our clients. It is a humbling honor to work with people who
are surviving some of life's most traumatic crises and to witness the
magnificent triumph of the human spirit.
Together we walk the pathways of hope and healing, and our
clients become our heros. So on behalf of the thousands of men,
women, and children that we have counseled in the past 20 years,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE MONTH OF APRIL AS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is
proclamation 4C. It's a proclamation to designate the month of April
as water conservation month to be accepted by Paul Mattausch, the
water department director.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Paul, is any of your other people
here from the water department? If they are, I'd like to have them
Page 18
March 22-23, 2005
stand.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Just me this morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just yourself?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I want to thank you for your
dedicated service here.
Whereas, water is a basic and essential need in every living
creature; and,
Whereas, the State of Florida water management districts and
Collier County are working together to increase awareness about the
importance of water conservation; and,
Whereas, Collier County and the State of Florida have designated
April, typically the dry month, when water demands are most acute,
Florida's water conservation month, to educate citizens about how
they can help save Florida's precious water resources; and,
Whereas, Collier County has always encouraged and supported
water conservation through various educational programs and special
events; and,
Whereas, every business, industry, school, and citizen can make
a difference when it comes to conserving water; and,
Whereas, every business, industry, school, and citizen can help
by saving water and thus promote a healthy economy and community.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of April be
recognized as Water Conservation Month and World Water Day
around the globe.
Collier County, Florida, is calling upon each citizen and business
to help protect our precious resources by practicing water saving
measures and become more aware of the need to conserve water.
Done and ordered this day, the 22nd day of March 2005, by the
Board of County Commissioners, Fred W. Coyle, Chair.
I move that we approve this proclamation.
Page 19
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas.
Second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Paul. Paul, are
you going to speak to us?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Never pass up this opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have 30 seconds.
MR. MATTAUSCH: That's all I'll take.
Commissioners, for the record, Paul Mattausch, Water
Department Director.
Thank you very much for this proclamation this morning. You
know, we get up every morning and we use this most valuable
resource of Southwest Florida. We brush our teeth with it, take our
showers, fix our breakfast, clean our dishes, flush our toilets, and
irrigate our lawns with this most valuable resource.
And I just want to take this opportunity to our consumers of this
resource to remind them to conserve. I tell the story, I have a two and
a half year old grandson who was the first family member born here in
Florida, and I want him to grow up not having to worry about whether
water is going to come out of the faucet every morning.
So thank you for this proclamation. This is appropriate on this
Page 20
March 22-23, 2005
day. It is Wodd Water Day. April is conservation month, and we
want to remind everybody to be aware of your water use, be aware of
conservation, and remember that Fridays are dry days.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks, Paul. Thanks for all your good
work, too.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next one -- we have a special
presentation, I believe.
Item #5B
CHAIRMAN COYLE RECOGNIZES JIM MITCHELL WITH A
PLAQUE FOR HIS OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO COLLIER
COI.IN.TY - -eRESENIEJ)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we do. Jim Mitchell is here, I see.
Jim, would you like to come up and stand in front of us?
Jim Mitchell has been with the Collier County Clerk's Office
since February 1994, for 11 years, first as internal audit director and
then as finance director.
Jim is an outstanding example of service to the goals of the
clerk's office, to the public officials, and staff of county government
and to the citizens of Collier County. His knowledge and
understanding of government finance spreads across all of the areas of
the 947 functions of the clerk's office.
His efforts in initiating the new financial accounting system's
application project, the implementation of revision seven to Article V,
which changed the process of state court funding, and the management
of county investments are but three of the most obvious of Jim's
responsi biliti es.
We wish him well as he undertakes new tasks with a new
Page 21
March 22-23, 2005
organization.
Jim, thank you very much for 11 years of service. And here is a
plaque that I hope you'll hang on the wall of your new office.
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you'd like to say anything, Jim, please
feel free to do so.
MR. MITCHELL: Let me just say after 11 years, it's pretty hard
to leave. You know, this job has given me the opportunity to grow
both professionally and personally, and I'd like to personally thank
Dwight Brock and also the board members up here, and wish nothing
but the continued success of this great community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Jim.
(Applause.).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a--
MR. MUDD: Time certain. We have a time certain at 9:30. Do
you want to finish the next two items before we go there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we'll do that. Yes, we'll do the
next presentation, then we'll go to the time certains. We're running a
little over time for those people who are waiting, but we'll get there.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZED JANET GO, RECYCLING COORDINATOR,
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONIH.EOR MARCH, 200~
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The presentation then is a
recommendation to recognize Janet Go, recycling coordinator, solid
waste management, as Employee of the Month for March 2005. And
if Ms. Go could come forward, please.
Page 22
March 22-23, 2005
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Right in the middle. Janet has a remarkable
knowledge of overall county processes and procedures along with a
history of internal workings of the solid waste management
department.
Janet has been with Collier County for 15 years and during that
time has acquired not only the knowledge to complete her own job
task, but also the knowledge to assist in other areas.
Janet displayed exemplary customer service with internal -- both
internally and externally. Janet goes beyond and -- her duties of a
recycling coordinator by mentoring and teaching new employees and
by providing her skills to complete tasks associated with finances.
In the summer of 2004, the administrative assistant in the
department retired after 20 years with Collier County. During this
transition period, in addition to her own duties, Janet stepped up to the
plate to assist with the payroll entry, paying invoices, and entering
blanket purchase orders into the system.
Janet continues to share her experience and knowledge on a daily
basis and she is always ready to lend a helping hand. Janet has
streamlined the annual Florida Department of Environmental
Protection Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Report
over the past three years so that it takes fewer employee hours and is
understandable to others in the department. This has been a cost
savings to Collier County.
As a proj ect manager for the 2004 waste tire grant, Janet
identified a vendor with an innovative use for recycled tire material --
recycled tire material that was installed on one of the soccer fields in
the Vineyards Community Park. The project received media and trade
association attention.
Janet holds a recycling technical associate certification from the
Solid Waste Association of North America. She recently had an
article published in the Recycle Florida Today newsletter.
Page 23
March 22-23, 2005
Janet is a member of the Collier Environmental Education
Consortium, Inc., and is currently secretary to Keep Collier Beautiful.
Janet's knowledge, dedication, and good will make her a
wonderful asset to the community and Collier County Government,
and I'd like to present Janet Go as Employee of the Month for March
2005.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much, Janet. I
have a plaque for you. Probably more important, a check. Doesn't she
get a free parking space somewhere out here?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, not unless you're giving yours up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She said yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can have Commissioner
Coyle's.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. It's the one on
the left, all the way on the left.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I love that recycled material, by the
way. They should put it in all the playgrounds, don't you think?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a tire in my truck.
MS. GO: Do you want me to pick it up right now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have my truck.
MR. MUDD: You have to take a picture.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to the time certain
item, right?
Item #10B
REVIEW OF THE WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS OF THE
ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES SCHEDULED FOR
REVIEW IN 2005 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO.
2001-55, INCLUDING THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
Page 24
March 22-23, 2005
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, DISASTER
RECOVERY TASK FORCE, OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THE SMART
GROWTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ALL APPROVED AS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have a time certain item, that is item
10B. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. on March 22nd, 2005, and it's
9:41.
Recommendation to review the written and oral reports of the
advisory boards and committees scheduled for review in 2005 in
accordance with ordinance 2001-55, including the Coastal Advisory
Committee, Collier County Planning Commission, Disaster Recovery
Task Force, Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee, and
the smart growth -- and the Smart Growth Advisory Committee.
Ms. Winona Stone, assistant to me, will present.
MS. STONE: Good morning, Commissioners. As you're aware,
in accordance with ordinance 2001-55, your numerous advisory
boards and committees are up for review every four years on a
rotating schedule.
The purpose of the reviews is for you to determine if the existing
advisory boards and committees continue to address the issues for
which they were established and to determine if any revisions are
necessary to have them function more efficiently and effectively.
This year you are reviewing 11 committees, of which you
reviewed six at your March 8th meeting. There are five committees
remaining for your review today, those are the Coastal Advisory
Committee, the Collier County Planning Commission, the Disaster
Recovery Task Force, Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee, and Smart Growth Advisory Committee.
The written reports are included in your agenda packet. And
after each presentation, we are requesting that you make a
Page 25
March 22-23, 2005
recommendation either to accept the committee's report as presented
or propose any changes that you would like to have occur with that
committee.
If there are no further questions at this point, I'll introduce your
first speaker.
Mr. Ron Pennington is here to present. He's chairman of the
Coastal Advisory Committee, and the report is found on page 4 in
your item.
Mr. Pennington?
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
Coyle, Commissioners. I'm Ron Pennington, Chairman of the Coastal
Advisory Committee, often termed the C-A-C or the CAC.
Your Coastal Advisory Committee is working hard to assist you
in maintaining Collier County's world-class beaches.
The CAC is the successor organization to the City of Naples
beach renourishment and maintenance committee established in 1991,
which I was also privileged to chair. That committee provided the
implementation and oversight for the renourishment of Vanderbilt and
Naples Beaches in 1995 and '96.
The CAC was created as a cooperative venture with Collier
County and the Cities of Naples and Marco Island to assist the Board
of County Commissioners in establishment of unified beach erosion
control and inlet management programs within the unincorporated and
incorporated areas of Collier County, and to advise the board and the
TDC of funding sources available for restoration and protection of the
county's shoreline.
Although there are unique differences and characteristics of the
beaches within our three local government entities, there are common
concerns.
When we consider that many of those grains of sand that are
presently being moved along Lely Barefoot Beach will sometime
become resident on the shoals of Cape Romano, we realize we're all
Page 26
March 22-23,2005
part of a common beach system in which cooperation in a unified
approach to beach maintenance is essential.
The committee is composed of nine members, three each from
the unincorporated Collier County and the Cities of Marco Island and
Naples. Members are to possess familiarity with coastal process, inlet
dynamics and coastal management programs or demonstrate an
interest in such programs, relevant education and experience.
Current members are, from City of Naples, myself as chairman,
Councilman John Sorey and Murray Hindel. From the City of Marco
Island, Councilman John Arceri as vice chairman, James Snediker,
and Paul Sullivan. From the unincorporated, Anthony Pires and Heidi
Kulpa, with a vacancy having two applicants, which we will consider
at our next regular meeting.
We review and analyze all beach-related tourist development
category A grant and funding allocation requests and make
recommendations to the TDC and the board.
In calendar year 2004, we reviewed, analyzed, and made
recommendations on 39 requests totaling almost $26 million. This is
not a cursory review but examines the technical aspects for use of
funds and ensures it meets the funding policy criteria established by
the Board of County Commissioners.
Additionally, the committee analyzes the needs of Collier County
for management of its coastal resources and makes recommendations
for improvement to the Board of County Commissioners. I believe the
county manager has initiated action to establish an entity for oversight
and management of all the county's coastal resources as we had
recommended.
As recently approved by the Board of County Commissioners,
we have initiated an analysis to development tourist development tax
funding parameters for all the inlets of the county.
The committee maintains a continuing oversight of all projects in
process with a program review at each regular meeting, and a special
Page 27
March 22-23,2005
meeting if required for a particular proj ect.
We review and make recommendations in all consultant reports
and recommendations concerning coastal projects.
We are currently working with the major renourishment project
for Vanderbilt and Naples Beaches, dredging of Wiggins Pass and
Doctors Pass, renourishment of Clam Pass Beach Park and related
dredging of Clam Pass, renourishment of Hideaway Beach and
installation of shore protection T -Groins, renourishment of South
Marco Island Beach and dredging Caxambas Pass.
Collier County Ordinance 2001-03 established the objectives and
responsibilities for the CAC. This committee is functioning well as
intended in meeting those goals and is providing a necessary service to
the Board of County Commissioners and to the Collier County
community .
Thank you very much for this opportunity to serve. I'll be happy
to respond to any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just wanted to ask you,
Mr. Pennington, why can't we expand the scope to your committee to
also cover beach access? It seems like that would be a natural venue
to go to.
MR. PENNINGTON: Well, I know this has been looked at, and
we certainly have had occasion to speak to the elements of that, but
we felt this board made a decision a year ago last December on
splitting that out, and that access was solely a responsibility of the
parks and recreation board, and you established a funding for that
particular purpose at that time.
And for us looking at access in addition to the maintenance of the
beaches, we think, would be a diversion really. Our concerns are
ensuring that our beaches are maintained, and we certainly share the
community's certain about access.
Being a person, a resident of the City of Naples with our 40
Page 28
March 22-23, 2005
public accesses, we'd like to see a lot more of them around to share the
load. So it is that kind of concern, but trying to bring that in with our
other things that we are doing, we feel, is a bit much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Pennington, didn't you
weigh in at your committee as far as the Tigertail Bridge they were
talking about to go out to Sand Dollar Island? It seems like that you
did weigh in on. So I'm kind of confused how you're picking and
selecting certain issues to weigh in on, others you're not.
MR. PENNINGTON: Well, it wasn't really that selective, and I
did note Commissioner Henning's comment in that regard, too.
But initially, when this came to us, I agreed with Commissioner
Henning's comment. We had at a meeting a number of citizens that
came before us during the public comments portion of the meeting and
requested that we get involved in that, and I declined.
I said, no, that is not our area of responsibility. That's Parks and
Rec. I don't want to get into their business. I don't want them getting
into ours. And I didn't feel that we should do so.
At the next meeting I had -- some of the other committee
members took exception to my statement and said, well, according to
our assigned responsibilities, we are responsible for projects on the
beach.
And as I looked at it -- and I had done some reconsideration on
this. What was being proposed, as we understood it, was that there
would be two structures actually on the beach and then other
structures crossing a lagoon, and these certainly have a physical
impact. They also have an impact on the habitat, which is another
area of our assigned responsibilities.
So I agreed that we would look at the matter, and at our next
meeting we had as an agenda item for information only to gain more
knowledge about what was being proposed, and we had a
representative from Parks and Rec. that spoke to us about it, and they
cited that they would soon be receiving the consultant report, and
Page 29
March 22-23, 2005
which they would provide to us.
At the next meeting, we did have the consultant report, which we
examined. Then I had members of our committee feeling that we
should take a position, as the TDC had done, in saying, we think that
this should be terminated.
So then I was directed to write the letter that you all received
stating our position. So that's how we got in it. But we looked at it
not from an access aspect, but as to impact -- physical impact on the
beach and lagoon.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. My personal feelings are,
is that the responsibility of beach access should be spread across many
different agencies. I don't think Parks and Rec. should bear the total
responsibility with everything that they have, or the Tourist
Development Council.
I think it's something that we should have many different people
looking at, and it shouldn't be something that will take a citizens'
group to bring a certain issue forward.
Your opinion's respected, your committee's opinion is respected,
and we need the citizens' business to be in a more front mode, put it
out there as many times as we can and in as many different formats as
we can.
I hope that your committee will reconsider this in the future and
that we might be able to also work you into the program so that your
opinions on beach access could be weighed along with everybody
else's.
Thank you, sir.
MR. PENNINGTON: We serve you, the county commission. If
you direct us to add that to our areas of concern, we will certainly
respond to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I, for one, would like to
see that happen. Of course, I'm one commissioner. I don't know how
the others feel.
Page 30
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and maybe this could be
a possible discussion in the future, but my perspective is the Coastal
Advisory Board has been dealing with beach renourishment and not
beach access over the years, and I think the change from the CAC to
the Parks and Rec. Advisory Board, now I've seen some action.
I just think it's a logical thing, is, for, you know, the rec.
department or advisory board to take a look at that.
I appreciate it -- I really sincerely appreciate your comments on
-- under the issue with the boardwalk. That issue got on the agenda
because it was political. And one of your members e-mailed the
Board of Commissioners and stated, because of political pressure of
the Friends of Tigertail Beach and that, that's -- you know, they
weighed in and made that decision and recommendations.
And I appreciate your stance, and if you can adopt the stance of
the chairman of the Planning Commission, is, if you want to be a
politician, run for the seat. And I just think that's a great stance, and
that gets the people back on focus of what they're charged to do. And
reading the ordinance is what you were created to do. And I
appreciate, again, your stance on focus, and let the politicians do the
political work.
MR. PENNINGTON: I totally agree with that, Commissioner
Henning and -- having been on both sides of that. I would rather stay
out of the political realm, and I think our committee -- I was not aware
that you had that particular communication, but I think our political --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was from a lawyer who
should know better also.
MR. PENNINGTON: Well, I might know who that was then. I
agree, I think that committee and all of our committees -- and I serve
on a comparable committee for the City of Naples, and I do not want
to get involved in political issues, so I appreciate your comments.
Page 31
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Neither do 1.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Neither do you what?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Want to get involved in political
Issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's just adjourn then. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I find that the CAC is providing
a needed value to the community and wish them to continue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then there's a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Thank you very much.
Commissioners, all in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous.
Thank you very much, Ron. Appreciate your service on the
board and what the board is doing.
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you all very much. And I also
would like to thank the county manager who has been very helpful
along the way in providing guidance to us, so thank you.
MS. STONE: Commissioners, your next speaker is Russell
Budd, he's chairman of the Planning Commission, and the report is
found on page 8 of your packet.
Mr. Budd?
MR. BUDD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Russell Budd. I'm here as the chairman of the Planning Commission.
Page 32
March 22-23,2005
And in the formal report in your packet you'll note that it lists that
we're serving the purpose for which we were created. The board is
adequately serving the community needs. There's no other board or
agency which would better serve this purpose, and so on and so forth,
and you've read all that good stuff, but I want to make some personnel
comments relative to the Planning Commission.
And in -- a short perspective on where we have been and where
we've come from in the context of my nearly 12 years of serving on
the Planning Commission. And most significant, we have greatly
improved rapport and support from our staff, starting with the regular
attendance of Mr. Joe Schmitt as the Administrator of Development
Services, where 12 years ago that did not happen. It was delegated
down to lower-level staff.
Some time ago it was also quite frequent to receive our packages
a day or two before the agenda was scheduled to be heard, and they'd
also be woefully incomplete, and that's behind us now. We receive our
information a week or 10 days ahead of time. It's well prepared. We
still give them a hard time and try to find everything they're missing,
and sometimes we're successful, but they do a good job at it.
The second major thing that's changed is the Planning
Commission rapport with county commission in that it was very clear
not only from the staff perspective but from the county commission
years ago that Planning Commission was an advisory committee with
an emphasis on advisory, as in it really doesn't matter, so you can
waste whatever time you want, and then it will come to county
commISSIon.
And I'm pleased that that is a totally different situation today, and
it is constantly reaffirming and reassuring for me to spend the time.
Because as you know, the Planning Commission is not a very well
compensated position, and it is not a worthwhile effort if we pass on
recommendations that are not carefully considered.
And speaking on behalf of the other Planning Commissioners, we
Page 33
March 22-23, 2005
have every confidence that our opinions are carefully weighed and
measured. And I don't have any statistics on it, but I'd say the great
extent of our recommendations are consistent with the county
commission actions on them.
And even in those cases where county commission disagrees or
reverses whatever recommendations we provide, that's not the least bit
upsetting in the context that, as you know, Planning Commission is
constrained, very narrowly constrained and very often and accurately
reminded by Ms. Marjorie Student and Mr. Patrick White of the
county attorney's office that we have to rely on a judgment of the
applicability of the land development code, growth management plan,
other codes and ordinances, and that's the end of the story.
And that, from my own perspective, has put me in a position of
voting against proj ects I liked and wanted to have move forward and
voting for projects that I really didn't care much for but fell within
those constraining guidelines. So we very much appreciate the respect
that we're given by the county commission.
One of the things that was noted that we're supposed to provide
in this report is suggestions for a more efficient and effective
operation of our respective advisory groups, and I have three
recommendations for the Planning Commission.
The first is that there is a stronger emphasis provided on making
education accessible to Planning Commissioners. Current policy
allows -- for example, if there is a Florida Planning Association
meeting, as there was a month or two ago in Gainesville, that the
county will reimburse the cost of tuition or registration for that class,
but not travel and not meals or any other incidental expenses.
So with no meals and no travel, the attendance at the last Florida
Planning Association meeting was nobody. And so my request would
be that we make more funding available.
And Mr. Schmitt has already received an approval from the
clerk's office that it's okay there, but he needs to get things wrapped
Page 34
March 22-23, 2005
up, and certainly your affirmation would go a long way toward
providing some increased funding.
But more important than travel money out of town, I'd request
that there be an effort made not for an educational event, but an
educational process that will only end when we quit issuing building
permits and quit rezoning property, which is not going to be in the
very near future.
An ongoing process, whether it's quarterly or semiannually or
annually, that either the Urban Land Institute or Florida Planning
Association or the American Planning Association or many other very
good professional organizations can be brought here to Collier
County, not only to be available to the Planning Commission
members, but to the county commission members, to the many
interested citizens, because as rapid and dynamic and overwhelming
the change in growth in this community, other communities are
dealing with it, too, and we don't have to invent everything. We can
learn from others, and I don't think we take advantage of that.
And, quite frankly, the position of county Planning
Commissioner is overwhelming. For those people who don't have an
involvement or awareness in the growth and development industry --
excuse me -- industry, to be thrust into the, if nothing else, the sea of
acronyms, between the CCPC and CP -- LDC and the GMP and AUIR
and FLUA and the CRA and the SIC and the alphabet soup, and you
don't know what the heck is going on, it is overwhelming.
And I hope you could keep up with all that. I'm sorry.
So in addition to education, my second request is that you
consider Planning Commissioner certification. It exists in other
municipalities in the State of Florida, and I think it's something that
should be phased in. I think it's healthy, it's appropriate, that a certain
level of continuing education not only be made available, but
commissioners -- Planning Commissioners be expected to attend and
to achieve that certification level.
Page 35
March 22-23, 2005
And then my third comment or request is that for future Planning
Commission members, that you consider continuing to have
representatives of the construction and development industry serving
on the Planning Commission. Myself, I'm a state certified general
contractor for over 20 years, I'm quite active building in Collier
County, and Commissioner Strain is employed by one of the largest
developers in Collier County.
We also have Mr. Schiffer who's an active architect in the local
community. And the uninformed would recognize that as the foxes
guarding the henhouse, but I will put our record up and say that hasn't
been a rubber stamp for anybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You bet.
MR. BUDD: And I think that more of that would be appropriate
with, as you will, careful consideration of the applicants.
But for someone not involved in the development industry it is an
overwhelming, mind boggling amount of data and information that
one must come up to speed on, and you just aren't going to get good
Planning Commission recommendations if you take somebody in the
totally unrelated field with no background, no opportunity for
education, no certification, and with all of their heart and soul, they
come up and they try to do their best, they just can't. It's too much to
ask.
So those are my three requests. I think we're doing the best we
can, and we appreciate the rapport we have with the county
commISSIon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to say, I want to
thank not only yourself but everybody else that has dedicated their
time and resources on the Planning Commission.
As you brought up, there's no compensation to this. This is
strictly voluntary. And I think you take on an awful lot of abuse, too.
And the dedication that I see in the last three, four years by the
Page 36
March 22-23, 2005
Planning Commission is unbelievable. It's impeccable. And as you
said, it used to be a source of where everything was rubber-stamped. I
think everything is well scrutinized. It's gone through very carefully.
And I know as -- myself, as a commissioner here in Collier
County, I really -- I rely heavily on the input that you people put into
looking at every one of the items that crosses your desk, and then it's
passed on to us.
And I weigh -- my vote is weighed heavily by the decisions that
come before -- that are passed up to us from the Planning
Commission, and I just want to thank you very, very much for you
and everyone else on the Planning Commission for the dedicated
servIce.
Thank you very much.
MR. BUDD: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, Commissioner Halas
just about said everything I would like to say, so I'd just like to say,
again, I echo what Commissioner Halas has said. I respect everybody
on that committee because I know how terribly hard they work.
And their opinions and their recommendations are always fair,
and I, too, weigh very heavily on what you advise us. Boy, and I
expect a lot, too. I mean, you guys weed out all of this stuff so that we
don't have to weed it all out. I really appreciate it.
MR. BUDD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree, and I would vote for the
three items that you talked about for changes on the Planning
Commission. But one thing that concerns me is an item that we're
going to be discussing tomorrow, and that's Goodland boat ramp.
I viewed that when the Planning Commission was weighing in on
it. The concern that I have, and you and I discussed this, is one of the
Planning Commissioners said, we need to hold the county higher than
Page 37
March 22-23, 2005
any other applicant that comes before this board.
What concerns me is, the advisory board doesn't have the ability
to spend tax dollars or make recommendations to expend tax dollars.
Concerns me is, the recommendations coming forward is because of
those comments, that's what the recommendations are.
And there's other concerns that I hope that we can get the -- a
great viable well-deserved (sic) serving the community, focused on
their tasks at what the ordinance says.
And, Commissioners, I don't know what to do about that. In the
past when I was chairman I asked -- wrote a letter thanking the
Planning Commission to -- for their services and also gave them a
copy of the ordinance so they can stick to the ordinance.
So I guess what I'm saying is, either we change the ordinance for
the scope, you know, make it broader, or emphasize how important it
is to stick with their duties as an advisory board.
MR. BUDD: Commissioner Henning, I would suggest that the
solution to that is an ongoing, never-ending process of education,
because it is just difficult to keep in focus on what we are constrained
to review.
And as Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Feder and others here from staffwill
readily attest, it is difficult to keep our Planning Commission from
turning into a site development plan review or architectural plan
review or some other inappropriate review beyond the scope of which
we are constrained, and continuing education of all parties involved
would help us keep our eye on the target because the target is
overwhelming.
And you're right, we try to do that and we get out of bounds
sometimes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think there's a
commissioner up here that doesn't truly appreciate what the Planning
Commission does. I think few people out there in the public
Page 38
March 22-23,2005
understand what the sacrifice is that the Planning Commission
members make.
They attend these meetings during the middle of the work day,
they have to leave their jobs, spend many, many hours in the process
of guiding the process to reach the commission in a -- fairly close to a
final form.
And I greatly value the Planning Commission, not only for what
they do as a unit, but for the individual members.
One of the problems we have on this commission is that we can't
discuss these issues with each other. We can discuss them with staff,
we can discuss them with a lobbyist, but when it comes to open
discussions with someone that really understands the issues, we're
very limited.
Thank God we have members of the Planning Commission that
we can meet with individually and talk at great lengths about different
issues that come up. Getting another source, and their experience and
background has helped to shape my opinions many times.
Anything I can do to encourage them with additional funds to be
able to get certification, I agree with you. The education process
never ends. And their ability to be able to serve the county would be
magnified many times over if we were able to come up with those
funds to be able to send them on to the different courses for
certification.
I know we have three commissioners here that have their
certification for being a county commissioner, and we all value that
experience greatly, and I would encourage it in any way I can help to
move it forward. I'll do it. Thank you.
MR. BUDD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Commissioner
Coletta.
I would like to pursue that education a little further with you,
Russell. I would go further than you have suggested, quite frankly,
Page 39
March 22-23, 2005
but I would just like to explore it briefly because we don't have a lot of
time today to deal with this.
But I would like your opinion about establishing an education
prerequisite for appointment to the planning advisory board. And I'm
concerned about whether that would prevent us from getting the
number of applicants we would like to have. If it would prevent us
from doing so, I wouldn't want to go that far.
But certainly somewhere between that position and the one you
espoused is -- seems appropriate to me. We should, I think, establish
at the very least a time limit for a member of the CCPC to obtain the
appropriate schooling and certification, because it is a complex task.
It is not just something that a citizen can walk in off the street and start
doing acceptably. I'd appreciate your reaction to that.
MR. BUDD: I think that it would be very appropriate to have an
identified prerequisite laid out before candidates that would weigh into
the selection but not immediately go to a mandatory level of education
or training, because the reality is, there's not always that -- there are
not that many people applying for the job.
And I'd mention that I'm serving my 12th year. Well, that's three
terms in a job that's a two terms limitation. And that occurred -- I live
in Commissioner Henning's district -- because after my second term,
and I thought I was free at last, free at last.
And Commissioner Henning came to me and said, well -- and I
don't have the quote exactly right, but the idea was, you know, we
really need you to apply again, keeping in mind that if a three-legged
dog that is a registered voter shows up against you, they're going to
get the job.
Fortunately -- or unfortunately, there's no three-legged registered
voters, a K -9, that showed up, so I was the -- what I'm getting at is I
was the only applicant for the job, and that is not infrequent.
So I think if you make the -- make the cost of entry too high,
you're going to dissuade people from participating. But I think the
Page 40
March 22-23, 2005
respect that you're giving the Planning Commission and its recognition
in the development community that it really matters is going to
encourage people to show up, because nobody wants to show up and
waste their time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I know I've had the
opportunity to make a couple of appointments since I've been here on
the Board of County Commissioners, and I can say that both of my
appointments, I felt, worked very well. Both of them had to work
extremely hard, and they're still working extremely hard to get up on
the learning process.
And as you brought up, there's an awful lot of time outside of the
Planning Commission that is spent just studying the subjects that are
coming before them. And again, these people aren't compensated.
And to ask these people to even further stretch themselves and come
up with recommendations or to come up with prerequisites in regards
to education, we may even narrow the field down even more.
And this is something where the citizens get involved, they're
concerned about their community, and I think that education is the
foremost thing that we have to look at, but we also -- we don't want to
make it too difficult so that we do not get applicants to fill those spots
on the Planning Commission, and that's one of my concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Is there amotion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve -- second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to accept the report by
Commissioner Coletta and second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 41
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your light's not on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know, just with the motion. Do
you want us to put into a motion form anything about -- about some of
the issues that he brought up that it sounds like we're all emphatically
behind?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think -- I think -- I'm making an
assumption that was implied in the motion because it was a
recommendation in the report --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if you're accepting the report--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- we would be accepting those
recommendations. Okay.
In your opinion, is more clarification required for your
recommendations to be implemented?
MR. BUDD: No. I think really Mr. Schmitt will be the one who
will be implementing this, so the question should go to him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Joe, do you understand what we
MR. SCHMITT: (Witness nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- what the recommendation are?
MR. MUDD: He will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County manager will, okay. We
don't care whether you understand, Joe. He understands, okay.
All right. Thank you very much.
MS. STONE: Commissioners, I think the travel expenses can be
Page 42
March 22-23, 2005
covered in the budget preparation that Joe presented --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think what you ought to do is
take the travel expenses out of Commissioner Coletta's overtime
budget.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Commissioners, Joe Schmitt,
Administrator of Community Development/Environmental Services.
The issue was -- the travel budget I could certainly cover. The
Planning Commission is funded by development services fees, so that
would be either fund -- primarily 131 since it's land use petitions, so
that is not the problem. The problem was with the clerk's office and
having the clerk recognize that they would pay a travel request from a
non-county employee.
I can pay the tuition if they attend a conference. The issue is
whether they get travel and per diem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this might require an ordinance
change?
MR. SCHMITT: Right. I may have to come back with either
some kind of an ordinance or a budget amendment that would legally
allow the clerk to make the travel payment to a non-county employee,
and that's what we're still trying to sort out with the clerk's office to
ensure that if, in fact, Mr. Budd or any of the other Planning
Commissioners attend such a conference, that -- and I think they
should be compensated.
They're not going to be compensated for their time, but certainly
should be -- should receive travel and per diem as well. Now, again, I
can pay the registration fee, but the travel and per diem is the issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We understand. Okay. Thank you very
much.
MR. BUDD: Commissioners, keep in mind that it's much more
desirable to bring the education to Collier County than to send the
commissioners out. That's the best choice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay. Thank you very much,
Page 43
March 22-23,2005
Russell.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've done a great job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, next one.
MS. STONE: The Disaster Recovery Task Force is currently
inactive, so your staff will be presenting on this and asking for your --
to support some recommendations that they have. Rick Zyvoloski
with the Bureau of Emergency Service Management, and the report's
on page 12.
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners.
Rick Zyvoloski, Emergency Management, common spelling.
Basically, as Winona stated, the recovery task force hasn't met.
We feel that its -- recovery task force is antiquated and under current
FEMA guidance, and essentially it's needed at the time of a major
disaster; however, outside of a disaster we have other more current
means to go ahead and address the issues that a recovery task force
was intended for when it was originally designed.
So we would like your direction to go ahead and rework the law
to address recovery task force as an ad hoc organization.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you.
Is there a motion to accept the recommendation?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Halas.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I second it. I just wanted to
know if number five, the recommendation, that the law should be
amended to allow activation on an as-needed basis is involved in this
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
Page 44
March 22-23, 2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
(Commissioner Henning was not present for the vote.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's unanimous.
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: Thank you very much.
MS. STONE: Commissioners, your next presenter is David
Loving, he's chairman of the Ochopee Fire District Advisory Board.
Mr. Loving, are you here?
(N 0 response.)
MS. STONE: I thought I saw him earlier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't see him.
MS. STONE: I thought I saw him earlier, but I may have been
mistaken. Did you see him?
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: No, I didn't see him.
MS. STONE: Okay. Then your final presenter is Mark Morton
with the Smart Growth Committee.
Mr. Morton?
MR. MORTON: Hello, Commissioners. You do have in your
package the staff report on what the Community Character/Smart
Growth Community's been up to, and I think they did an excellent job
in drafting this. In fact, the committee helped draft it, so the
committee -- and Jason Sweat did a great job.
I'd like to just go over with you all who we are, what we have
been looking at, where we are, and where we are going.
Who we are is Brad Cornell with Collier Audubon, Russ Weyer
Page 45
March 22-23, 2005
with the ULI; Christopher Shucart, who is a developer; Dwight
Richardson, a citizen; Joe Boggs, a surveyor; Brent Moore, a planner;
Pat Pochopin, a citizen; Mike Boyd, a sign contractor; Bob Murray, a
citizen; Celia Fellows, environmental consultant; and Joe Gammons, a
business owner.
The only reason I wanted to go through that is I've really enjoyed
this group of people because it is a broad-based group of stakeholders.
They all care about what we're talking about. They all come prepared
to talk, and we just have great meetings. It's a good group of people.
And we are sunsetting in June, and we're going to be saying that's
fine with us. We won't be asking to be continued, and I'm going to
miss those folks. It's a great, super group of people.
Other -- let me go on then with what we did, if you might say,
where we've been. We started out and we looked into what
Commissioner Henning had said as kind of sticking to the ordinance
and what the ordinance laid out for us to be doing.
At the time we started to be formed and as we've gone through it,
there were several efforts going on in Collier County that were all
smart growth related. We had rural lands, rural fringe, the Golden
Gate Master Plan, the Immokalee Master Plan, Conservation Collier,
concurrency, and the Affordable Housing Committee. All those folks
were doing things that kind of crossed over to what we were doing.
And we would discuss taking them up but realized that there
were good groups of people working on all those and there was not
necessarily a duplicate of reason for to us wade into what they were
doing.
So then we looked at the community character plan and said,
okay, what's the feasibility of implementing the recommendations in
the community character plan? Can we afford to implement those
things? Can we -- is it feasible to implement it? How will the
community react to some of these suggestions?
And I think there were like 30 major suggestions in there, and we
Page 46
March 22-23,2005
weeded it down to our top 10, and then we went after our top five.
And we went through those and knocked them off one at a time, and
they crossed into some of the efforts that were going on.
We then, as we got through that, said, well, where could we
provide the best value to planning in Collier County, and that's to you
all and to everyone here in the community.
And we looked at a couple of different areas, and one was the
mixed use component of redevelopment, and the other was congestion
management at the major intersections, and we also came up with, in
objective seven, a whole series of policies for promoting the
community character and smart growth elements.
We've worked with Marla on the recreation and open space
element, which was adopted, and we are currently in the process of
coming up with the land development code regulations that will
implement the future land use element, residential mixed use
neighborhood sub district, the urban commercial! commercial mixed
use sub district, and the urban mixed use district, commercial mixed
use district. It's a mouthful.
Basically what that is, is if you have a piece of residential land
somewhere, it's a small 10 acres or something, instead of it just going
in as residential in an area that maybe would be more applicable for
mixed use, these growth management plan policies allow a mixed use
to go there.
Now, I know we all struggle with, how do we incentivize things
to happen. And that's one thing that's been very good about this
committee is to listen to the citizen participation we've had from folks
like Bob Murray and Dwight Richardson and others, and from the
environmental community that's been involved, to say, you know,
how can we make it so that if a person has a piece of property, mixed
use would be their first choice?
So we looked at things -- obviously if you could make money
just doing residential there, you're just going to do residential there.
Page 47
March 22-23, 2005
But if you can gain a little more flexibility, a little more intensity, if
the process is cleaner to get through mixed use, will the person then
put office and residential and commercial together?
So we've tried to do all we could to come up with a series of
incentive-based -- and I think we've accomplished it, and I think we
are going to see, over time, more mixed use projects come in, which
according to smart growth, is the kind of thing we want in our urban
area, especially.
And this really is the urban area. I know there's discussion, for
example, in Golden Gate to add more commercial nodes, et cetera.
Those are all elements, too, and that is -- hopefully with our mixed-
use criteria that we've all developed and you all have approved to date,
that can be a template for other areas. So it's just been a wonderful
expenence.
Weare currently working to get the land development code regs
in place. Basically what you have now is in the compo plan. You
allow these mixed-use developments, then someone's going to come in
in the land development code, and now they have to put it in the
ground.
Well, the way our land development code is set up, it's really set
up -- it's not really set up for mixed use. It's set up for compatibility
and separation of use. You have an office, and then -- I mean, you
have commercial and then residential next to it, and there's certain
setbacks and walls and fences and everything. You make sure those
guys aren't connected, et cetera, et cetera.
So the whole issue with the mixed use is how do you take our
existing land code and put residential on top of retail? How do you
put retail right next to residential with retail on the other side all in one
proj ect?
So we actually have gone through the land code meticulously
with staffs help to find out where the places in the land code that need
to be -- have more flexibility to allow mixed use to occur, because
Page 48
March 22-23, 2005
what should happen is a person will look at a piece of property and
say, gee, I can do residential here or I can just tear myoId commercial
building down and slap more commercial here, or office, or I could go
to this mixed use component where, potentially, I may have a -- I may
make more money, which is what drives the market.
Yes, but how complicated is that going to be? Am I going to
have to go through some long drawn-out process and get a compo plan
amendment and go through all these different zonings on
compatibility? You know what, forget it. I'm just going to do
commercial, I'm just going to do residential, and there ends our, you
know, transportation advantage of having mixed uses.
So what this will establish, hopefully, is someone can take this,
say, you know what, in the path of least resistance to get my project
approved, I'm going to go mixed use. So we're rewarding the person
who's going mixed use.
And so that's what we've been working hard on, and we probably
have the heaviest lifting going on between now and June, which is to
finish up the very detail, how do you get dealing with setbacks and
different mixes of uses and landscaping and signage, and all the things
that affect how that final footprint looks that's in the land code.
So it's a lot of fun. It's creative. But it's also -- we also overlay
on it the reality of the process. And we've had good support from staff
and from the folks at that back table, who have all been very
encouraging to our efforts, who have come to our committee on many
occaSIons.
Another item we did was congested management. We find in
transportation, as you know, we're building all these big roads and we
have all these master plans and we have concurrency and stuff in
place, but what happens in an activity center where you have the
YMCA, and right next to the YMCA is the apartment complex, and
behind that apartment complex is Barron Collier High School, and
they all have fences and they're all disconnected.
Page 49
March 22-23, 2005
How can you get the people -- why -- you have all these people
that we wanted in apartments to use the Y, and we want those kids in
that high school to walk over to the high school and not get in their
car. Well, the only way to get out of that apartment complex is back
on Airport Road -- Pine Ridge Road to go over to the YMCA right
next door, you know, or go to your school.
So we would look at those and drew little marks on a red map,
because we're just advisory and, you know, we could take a look at it,
and gave it to transportation and say, you know, maybe in your money
and as time goes by, if you can create a connection, just a little bit of
asphalt that would connect that apartment complex to the YMCA or a
gate in that fence to allow them to go back and forth.
It sounds like small things, but when you look at these major
intersections that are built out, they're big things, these connections.
Now, one of the big successes we've had of doing this was
looking at the Pioneer Lakes area and trying to connect them to the
industrial park; therefore, the people in the industrial park would be
able to come into Pioneer Lakes, which is where the movie theater is
and the Costco's and the Lowe's and could get to another traffic signal
and disperse the traffic.
And one of our members, Bob Murray, met with the developer
and with the car dealer, and they all agreed they could figure a way to
get this road through the back of the car dealer's property to connect,
and that's all happening.
And what occurred though is at the SDP level they really didn't
have to do any of this. This has already been through zoning, so now
you're dealing with someone who doesn't have to connect. But
because of the efforts of the committee and staff to talk to the
developer, they came in, talked to us, agreed this would be a great
idea. Obviously they need more people, more shoppers, et cetera, so it
made a lot of sense, and we're able to make something happen, which
is working with our neighbors.
Page 50
March 22-23, 2005
So in general, you know, looking at everything that's happened in
smart growth in Collier County, it's interesting. I think Collier County
has implemented more smart growth items than any county in -- in the
State of Florida, if not maybe in the country.
When you look at our rural land, the rural fringe, the Golden
Gate master plan, the Immokalee master plan, your Conservation
Collier, concurrency, affordable housing, on and on it goes, it's all
state of the art, it's all the best stuff.
And so a lot has been accomplished. Committee can't take credit
for all that. A tremendous amount of other people have. So we're just
etching out our little piece.
But I guess our good news and bad news is, we should be done
by June. The bad news for us is we all won't have that camaraderie
together, but that's fine. We're all ready to retire as Community
Character/Smart Growth council people.
So we appreciate the opportunity to serve and give input to you
all. And I do want to say thank you to our past members, Jim
Rideoutte, Ellen Goetz, and Sally Barker and Bruce Anderson and
Sam Nowe and Mike Bowers and Jim Lucas, and Gary David, and
Barb Cacchione and Amy Taylor and Jason Sweat, our support, and
John David Moss and the folks at that back table and Sam Tucker and
Commissioner Henning. I mean, there's just been a great amount of
people involved in this, and it's been a good process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you, Mark. It's a great
report, and you've done great work. I'd just like to point out again for
the listening audience that you are not a government employee --
MR. MORTON: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that you're a member of the public
who has been working at no pay on something like this for a long,
long, long time, as have all the other committee members, and you're
to be complimented for the fine work that you've been doing for the
people of Collier County.
Page 51
March 22-23, 2005
Is there a motion to accept this report?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a second by -- actually,
Commissioner Halas was the second.
Any further discussions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mark. Great job.
MR. MORTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks. Now, let's go back to the
Ochopee --
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to Ochopee, the
Fire Control District Advisory Board.
Is Mr. Loving here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have read the report. There's
no reason we can't accept the report.
MR. MUDD: They basically state that the ordinance is sufficient
to do their job and they do a valid public purpose, and I'd recommend
approving it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve for all those
Page 52
March 22-23, 2005
reasons.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before you take a break, can we do
the public petition, because they've been waiting here patiently in
order to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, we can do that.
MR. MUDD: Then we'll take that break, then we'll go into the
11 o'clock time certain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you hold out for another five
minutes?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY CAMILLE MERILUS TO
DISCUSS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BRANCH
FOUNDATION FOR HAITIAN DEVELOPMENT IN NAPLES -
Page 53
March 22-23, 2005
MR. MUDD: The next item is item 6A. It's a public petition
request by Camille Merilus to discuss the establishment of a branch
foundation for Haiti Development in Naples.
Please state your name for the record.
MR. MERILUS: Good morning, Chairman Coyle, good
morning, Commissioners, Commissioner Fiala, good morning, Mr.
Manager, and I have to thank you for allowing me to be here today,
Mr. Mudd, county attorney, county clerk, and members of -- the
assistants.
I have to say thank you to your secretary, Julie. I've been having
numerous conversations with her.
My name is Camille Merilus from Camille and Sweat Merilus
Foundation for Haiti Development, Inc., and I've got my wife,
co- founder of the institution, I've got several staff people here.
We founded this institution in Miami where we are currently
based in downtown Miami 12 years ago. During (sic) the fact that I'm
a blind man, when I knew that I was a carrier of that disease, that's the
main reason why we created this foundation.
What we move from, like eye diseases, prevention of eye
diseases through the community to breast cancer prevention, prostate
cancer prevention, to feed the hungry, and then we also provide a job,
because now we can do a combination of job fighting against hunger,
joblessness, and sickness, and that's what we have been doing.
And I can tell you that we have an understanding of Miami/Dade
County officials, they like the work that we're doing. Chairman Joe
Martinez and other commissioners, they really like the work, and
that's the reason why some of our folks from Collier County has made
the request that we, you know, explore the possibility of establishing
ourself around here because eye diseases are five times higher than --
so that means we are looking for -- to be here, but we need your help
Page 54
March 22-23,2005
so we can establish ourself. We need the office space.
Now we are -- where we are in Miami, that's a government
building, and that's where we are. And we are here to call upon you to
-- you know, to explore the possibility of helping us to get the funding
and to get a spot around here so we can settle ourself and serve so
many, not just Haitian American around here, but other ethnic group,
and the people. People help them, so because we are -- in Miami we
serve Spanish people. We serve everybody.
So please do your best for us so we can -- if you can make it so
we can work with staff, with the management office or you can
explore the possibility of helping us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Merilus.
Does that conclude the presentation?
MR. MERILUS: Yes, that's the main thing that we want to do.
We need your help so we can, you know, get the support that we need
so we can establish ourself around here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are there any questions by
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This hearing is not designed to
make a decision. The public petition process is designed to bring the
matter before the board, and then the board can make a decision as to
whether or not they wish to pursue it.
Commissioners, what I would suggest is that we ask the county
manager to at least add this organization to the list of social services
organizations that are looking for funding and support to be presented
for our further consideration sometime in the future. Is that -- would
that be acceptable to you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be acceptable. I don't
know if such a list exists though. I don't want to promise something
that has no meaning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, my -- I think, didn't we receive a
Page 55
March 22-23, 2005
number of requests from other social services organizations?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. For the 2005 budget, yes, we did, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. That's the list I'm thinking
about. And is there a problem with just adding this organization to
that list to be considered among all the social service organizations
that are asking for support?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't we -- I don't think--
would we address that issue? I think that was postponed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we haven't -- we haven't agreed to
allocate any money to them, okay. And I'm not suggesting we do so
now. I'm merely suggesting that this is the identification of another
social services organization that's looking for help. Should they be put
on that list?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the problem is that the
list doesn't exist.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think there is a list of people who
have asked for funds.
MR. MUDD: Yes, there is. Sir, can I make another
recommendation?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MR. MUDD: I'd like to -- I'd like to have Marla and Barry
Williams from our staff work with this particular group to see if there's
ways that we can get them tied into the United Way, see if there's
ways that we can tie them into the CDBG to see if those particular
funds are available in order to help them, and I think we could work it
in that particular case and see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's acceptable to me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll go along with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
MR. MERILUS: Commissioner, thank you very much, because I
can tell you that we'll -- because we are the one to do the flag day
parade in Miami on May 21 st, and we sent an invitation. Even if you
Page 56
March 22-23,2005
cannot make it, we send the invitation. We're going to, I can tell you
that, create some time of move around here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, sir.
MR. MERILUS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Appreciate it.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, just briefly. One of the
things we can give you is the ability to be able to network to be able to
tie into the other organizations that are in Collier County . We've got a
very caring county, and we do have a great network of organizations
that help each other and know where to get resources that are out
there, whether it be from the state, federal government, or county
government and other social services agencies. They'll invite you to
attend the interagency meeting in Immokalee, which about 50 some
agencies attend once a month, to be able to network with them to see
what can be done to reach your stated goals.
Thank you very much for coming.
MR. MERILUS: Thank you. The date of that next--
MR. MUDD: Marla went outside to get your name so that she
could work in with -- contact you in order to get that done. She
moved from the back. She's waiting for you to go out in the hallway,
and then she'll get your name in that particular case so we can set up a
future meeting.
MR. MERILUS: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MERILUS: Have a nice day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now we're going to take a
IO-minute -- or I5-minute break.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And we'll start with the audit when we
get right back.
(A briefrecess was had.)
Page 57
March 22-23, 2005
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We're
back in session. We have a time certain now.
Item #13A
PRESENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
MR. MUDD: Yes. This is item -- this is item 12 -- excuse me.
This is item 13A. This item to be heard at 11 a.m. on March 22nd,
2005, to present the Board of County Commissioners the
comprehensive annual financial report for fiscal year ended September
30th, 2004.
A copy of the report is on display in the county manager's office
in this building on the second floor, and your presenter will be Mr. Jim
Mitchell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Jim, is Derek going to be
part of this presentation? I was going to introduce Derek as your
interim replacement at this point in time. Would this be a good time
to do that?
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, why don't you introduce
Derek.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, thank you. As you're well
aware, I have turned in my resignation, and Friday will be the last day
of my employment with Collier County.
And as I told you this morning, it has been an absolute pleasure
Page 58
March 22-23, 2005
serving both the clerk and this board for the 11 years that I've been
here. And during the period -- there's an interim period where we're
uncertain exactly who's going to take my position. The clerk has
assigned certain components of my job to Derek Johnssen.
And give you a little background on Derek, he's a graduate of the
great school known as Florida State University.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, good.
MR. MITCHELL: He came to us several years ago from Lee
County, Florida, where he served as an accountant, and I brought him
in here shortly after I did assume the reign of director of finance. He's
been with us for a number of years. He is a certified public accountant.
Probably one of the sharpest accountants that I've ever seen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
MR. MITCHELL: For the presentation today, I'm going to kick
it off. Mr. Jones, Chip Jones with KPMG's going to walk you through
it. A couple of statements I want to make up-front, and then as we go
through it, any questions that you have, Derek will definitely be the
one that will be addressing those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: The Clerk of the Circuit Court in his role as
the ex officio Clerk to the Board is responsible for the coordination of
the annual independent audit, along with production of the
comprehensive annual financial report, which we commonly refer to
as the CAFR.
We're here today to present the CAFR for the year ended
September 30th, 2004. And if you remember last year, we were not
able to get the CAFR done and presented to you until sometime in
June. This was due primarily to that being our first year-end closing
with the new financial package and a significant learning curve that
we experienced during that process.
We have dedicated the period since June to ensuring that we had
a very successful and timely closing, and also looked at ways that we
Page 59
".-~'____"'"_""___'____~'M_"""'_'>"",_",.,.,,__,,__.,_,,__
March 22-23, 2005
could improve the process.
The most important change that came out of last year was the
creation of an audit committee. This committee is made up of
representatives of the board's agency, along with each of the
constitutional officers.
This committee has been involved from the onset of the audit,
and the presentation that you are about to see was first presented to
them for their comments and their acceptance.
Before I turn the podium over to Chip Jones with KPMG, I'd like
to personally thank the audit committee for the work that they did this
year and also express my sincere appreciation to the clerk's finance
department, along with those involved board departments for a job
well done.
With that, I'm going to turn it over to Chip Jones, who will walk
you through this year's financial statements.
MR. JONES: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Chip.
MR. JONES: As your auditor, I'm going to miss Jim Mitchell,
too. I work with five counties, and I found Jim always to be very
professional, very straightforward. If there's a problem, he calls me.
If there's something going on in the county he thinks I should know
about, he calls me. He's very much an open communicator, and I have
a lot of respect for him, and I think he's been one of the best finance
directors that I've worked with as far as the five counties that I work
with. So, I'm going to miss him, but I wish him the very best.
You do have an audit committee this year, which we did meet
with about two weeks ago, and we probably spent about an hour and a
half going through the financial statements and discussing a lot of
aspects of the audit.
I thought it was a very healthy discussion. This is not going to
take an hour and a half, abbreviated presentation. But I wanted to go
through and highlight some of the results of the county for the year.
Page 60
~-----'-'-'-"" - -'''''<__'___'.m.~,___....._.__,,,___"_
March 22-23, 2005
If you look at the first page, we issue a number of reports for the
county. The main one is the opinion on the basic financial statements
of the county or what is known as the CAFR. About 175 pages long.
I don't think anybody ever reads the whole thing, except for the
accountants in the finance department, but if you do read it, I would
encourage you to read the management's discussion and analysis and
focus on some of the major statements right in the beginning, because
I think you can get a good idea, and that's what I'm going to cover.
In that CAFR is a transmittal letter, statistical section single, the
single audit, and the management letter as well.
We also issue a separate opinion on internal control over
financial reporting and compliance, and that involves testing, make
sure that the county's in compliance with laws and regulations, where
noncompliance could have a material impact on the county.
We do an audit of your federal and state single audits. This year
there were 12 programs that we audited, five federal and seven state.
We issue a management letter. A number of components of the
management letter are items required by the auditor general that we
have to address, and so we do that.
We issue a letter to your audit committee that talks about our
required communications, and we discussed this in detail with them
when we met with them, but it's basically to go over what our
responsibilities, our auditors, to disclose any difficulties we had in
performing the audit, any adjusting entries that we passed on that they
were posted, to make everybody aware of the entire audit process.
And then we also issue separate financial statements on each of
the constitutional officers, and those audits also go very well.
If you look in the county, the focus of the audit is on major funds,
meaning that the fund is over 10 percent of like all governmental
funds or five percent for the county's always considered major. And
so we opine literally on each major fund.
Your major funds were the general fund, the impact fees escrow
Page 61
March 22-23, 2005
fund, road impact districts, park impact districts, road construction,
county water and sewer, and then everything else is lumped into a
category called other aggregate non-federal-- I mean, other aggregate
information.
The CAFR also includes your component units. The two biggest
once are Collier County Water and Sewer and the Goodland Water
District, which are considered blended. They're shown as part of the
government. And your various authorities are very small in activities;
serve a very important purpose but their financial activity is very little,
and they were shown as a separate column.
This page reflects your -- the financial condition of the county at
the end of the year. And I want to highlight a couple things. One is, if
you go down to the net asset category, that's an important measure of
the financial stability of the county. And you can see that total net
assets were $1.3 billion this year versus $1,173,000,000 in the prior
year. And the unrestricted component of that went from $242 million
up to about $300 million.
Your unrestricted in the governmental activities has shown
continuing strengthening over the last three years. Two years ago, in
2002, that was 133 million. This year it went to 162 million -- I mean,
last year at 162 million, and this year is 220 million. But you've got a
very healthy financial position for the county.
Some other things to point out, capital assets includes all of your
infrastructure, roads, streets. You can't ever go and sell those things,
but they're an important part of what the county does, and you've spent
a lot of money. That's about $205 million.
And your biggest single asset on the financial statements is your
cash and investments, $525 million. And we looked at how that's
invested. It's invested in accordance with county policies, in
accordance with state requirements, and obviously it's a big area of the
audit.
The next page is the statement of activities. And this statement
Page 62
March 22-23, 2005
reflects all the governmental functions as well as your business type
activities, and it starts off with a column on your expenses, and then it
shows the revenues that you get to offset those expense, being either
charges for services, operating grants and contributions, and capital
grants and contributions.
And you come down to a net expense or revenue. And for the
governmental activities, your net expenses essentially are what people
look at supporting with their property tax dollars.
In fact, this year you can see that the net expense is about 203
million. If you go down under general revenues at the bottom, your
property tax revenue this year was 213 million. So essentially that
covered the cost of government.
Now, included in that was $11 million for your Collier County __
the Conservation Collier for acquiring the land, and I'll talk about that.
In fact, you had $44 million of land acquisition this year.
And I know when I was first looking at the CAFR, I thought,
wow, what happened? Because usually that was a small amount every
other year.
But overall, our fund balance increased 133 million compared to
$105 million last year, and that was driven primarily because of the
increase in the property tax revenue.
Now, the general fund is what you probably focus on mostly in
your budget process. And this table reflects how your general fund
compares to -- your general fund balance compares to your
expenditures. And this is a common measurement that is used by
counties and cities throughout the state.
And you can see that the end of 2004, that your total fund
balance as a percentage of expenditures and transfers was 21.7 percent
of that amount. You can see that back in 2000, it was 21.3 percent, a
decline in 2001 and 2002, and it's come back up. And this is a healthy
fund balance. It's not excessive, but it is healthy.
And you need a good fund balance, and there are somer
Page 63
March 22-23, 2005
municipalities around the state that would be envious of your fund
balance, and they learned that this year with the hurricanes and stuff.
But it gives you the opportunity to react to situations such as
hurricanes that come through, and you don't have to look and say,
well, we're strapped for cash. We can't do the things we want to.
You've got that flexibility.
You're experiencing tremendous growth issues down here.
Again, you can use some of the fund balance in planning how you
address that growth in a proactive move rather than it being a reactive
move. And then other issues that might come up, it gives you the
flexibility to address, but you have a good fund balance.
Not only do you have a general fund, but you have special
revenue funds, which essentially are revenues that are earmarked for
specific purposes. You have debt service funds, which are designed to
reduce debt, and then capital projects funds, which basically represent
monies from either bond proceeds or special taxes or moneys that may
be transferred from other funds for capital proj ects.
The special revenue funds, you can see, has an $84 million
balance at the end of the year. But the biggest increase is in the capital
projects funds, and that took place two years ago with the proceeds of
the gas tax revenue bonds. So those monies are available for capital
expenditures.
On page 7, it gives you a summary of your revenues and the
types, and you can see the total revenues that the county had were
$407.8 million, of which $242 million were taxes. And you can see
that that amount has almost doubled from what it was just five years
ago in 2000. And that has to say a lot about, you know, the property
values down here, the increased growth, those types of things.
The next significant category is intergovernmental, which is
grants and state revenue sharing.
On page 8, it just shows a pie chart of how you are supported by
your different revenue sources, and you can see taxes support 59
Page 64
~--'_.~~--._~,---_._.".__.
March 22-23, 2005
percent of the county's activities. That's up from 55 percent last year
and 52 percent in 2004.
On page 9 and 10, we'll do the same thing with expenditures, but
this essentially shows the types of governmental functions that we
provide. The largest is public safety, and you can see we spent $124
million this year. That was up from 108 million. Most of that was
salary increases and more FTEs in the sheriffs department.
A capital outlay was significant. As I mentioned, that included
the $44 million for the land acquisition as well as some other projects
that took place.
Now, on this next page is a pie chart, again, showing the
expenditures. And this is a little bit misleading. I didn't think about
this until after I put this slide together. But, for instance, it shows
public safety expenditures being 27 percent of your total budget when,
in fact, it's really probably more 42 percent when you take out capital
outlay. And again, capital outlay kind of benefits the general county
as a whole, and it can include a number of things.
But if you remove the capital outlay part, sheriffs -- the public
safety, which is also fire, is 42 percent of your budget, which is
comparable to what you see in most counties and cities. I've seen it go
anywhere from 40 to 60 percent.
Page 11, the highlight where your government debt is, it's gone
up over the last two years. This year we issued $50 million of capital
improvement bonds, of which that was mostly for the j ail complex, as
well as county development services expansion projects. And we also
issued $40 million of commercial paper, which was for the land
acquisitions.
The increase from 2002 to 2003 was, as I mentioned, the gas tax
bonds that were issued in that year.
Now, starting on page 12, I'm going to highlight just a few things
on your water and sewer enterprise fund. The total debt in this fund is
up to $138 million, your bonds are 63 million, and your notes payable
Page 65
March 22-23, 2005
were 74 million. All those monies and those payables essentially have
been used to pay for a lot of infrastructure improvements that have
taken place, and that's with the State Revolving Loan, which, for our
purposes, we actually create as a federal grant for testing even though
you repay it. Revenue bonds haven't been issued for some time.
If you go to page 13, this is condensed income statement for that
fund, and you can see that we have $7 million of operating income or
net income before capital contributions this year, which has been
consistent with the last three years, and our unrestricted fund balance
is about the same as it was in 2003.
The large drop from 2002 to 2003 was because, instead of
borrowing money, you used a lot of money to pay for a lot of capital
expenditures, so the internal funds generated from the operations of
the system. In fact, you do that every year, and I'll point that out on
page 14.
This is a cash flow statement, and that's probably the most
important thing to look at your enterprise funds, but essentially if you
add back depreciation, cash from operations this year was $24 million
in improvement over the 21 million in the prior year, and 18 million in
the year before that.
And what you usually want to do is generate enough cash from
operations that it can service your debt and pay for capital
improvements that aren't financed with bond proceeds.
And in your case, you actually had debt service of $11 million,
capital expenditures of $69 million, we borrowed 20 million from the
state resolving loan fund, we had 25 million assist in development
charges, and then the rest of the capital expenditures was paid for from
operations.
On page 15, this is the components of your investments at the
end of the year. Over a half billion dollars at September 30th. And,
again, as I mentioned, we look very closely at how these are invested
and how they're monitored.
Page 66
March 22-23, 2005
And then the last page just gives you an overview of the federal
and state single audit. This lists out the major federal programs that we
tested. You had actually $28 million in federal revenues, federal grant
revenues this year, and then the state programs that we tested, you also
had about 12 million in state grants.
The audit went very well. We had a couple management letter
comments, nothing that were significant, that are in the back of the
CAFR, and we review those with management, and management's
responses are in the CAFR. The big ones that we had last year,
particularly the bank reconciliations, were cleared, and those
processes are back to normal.
I'd be happy to respond to any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For the entire report?
MR. JONES: Hmm?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For the entire report? Are you finished
with your portion of the report?
MR. JONES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I just have some questions
concerning current year recommendations, and it's primarily directed
to staff.
MR. JONES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The recommendations concerning our
housing department and our responses to those do not appear to be
sufficient, at least from my standpoint, and I'd just like to explore a
couple of things with you.
The auditor has suggested that we have contractual agreements
between the county and a contractor for grants, and they have
suggested that such does not exist and that we do not get more than
one bid for work to be done under those grants for the grantee.
And our response is that there is no requirement for the
homeowner to solicit more than one bid for a project. Maybe that's
true under the regulations. But does it make sense not to get more
Page 67
March 22-23, 2005
than one? Shouldn't we try to make sure these things are done
competitively so that we get the best price, the homeowner gets the
best price for these -- the expenditure of taxpayer funds?
My concern is, it just doesn't -- it appears that we've skirted the
issue. A recommendation has been made about how we can improve
the process. We say, well, it's not required. Well, does that mean the
recommendation isn't a good recommendation?
MR. JONES: Well, go ahead.
MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Cormac Giblin. I'm your housing
and grants manager. I can address that comment.
This recommendation is focused into our home rehabilitation
program. In the past, I'd say probably five years ago, we ran the
program where the county would solicit bids on behalf of
homeowners. There was an approved contractors list, and there was
some major Issues.
First of all -- let me put it in a little bit of context. Jobs that we're
talking about here average a couple thousand dollars each. The
maximum for the program is $15,000 a house, and in anyone house,
there can be several different contractors, we'll have a plumber, an
electrician, a painter, you know, several different contractors working
in anyone house for maybe a couple thousand dollars for each
contract.
A few years ago we revamped that program to allow the
homeowners the flexibility to go out and choose their own contractor
rather than the county assigning a particular contractor for their house.
The only requirements in the ordinance are that they be licensed in
Collier County, they be insured, and that they provide us with an
estimate.
We are -- I'll let you know that we are taking the auditor's
recommendations to heart, and we are in the process of revamping our
program to allow for the -- the homeowner does have the opportunity
to solicit as many bids as necessary.
Page 68
March 22-23, 2005
It was an issue specifically dealing in the remote areas of
Immokalee or Copeland or some of these places where we have these
low-income households getting more than one bid out there for a
one-thousand-dollar job.
So I don't know if that clears -- I hope that clears it up a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it doesn't really. Are you telling
me that you're really going to look into requiring more than one bid or
you're not going to?
MR. GIBLIN: No, I am. We are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You really are?
MR. GIBLIN: We are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's not specified.
MR. GIBLIN: We really are. In fact, in response to some of
these findings, we held an entire department off-site strategy planning
session yesterday, and that was one of the outcomes of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the other -- the other issue -- and
they are numerous, and I'm going to go through every one of them, but
requiring submission of the underlying invoices rather than a
cancelled check.
Once again, the response from management is nonresponsive. I
cannot understand what you are saying in response to that particular
requirement.
MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. It is our practice to require both the
cancelled check and the invoice. In the item that was monitored, it was
-- evidently was not in the file at the time. It has since been placed in
the file. But our response on that issue is that we agree, we will pay
on a cancelled check and an invoice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, there is a whole list of
similar concerns in the qualified statements in the rear of this report
concerning the housing department. It causes me a great deal of
concern. And I would hope that management can assure us that we're
going to address these concerns very specifically.
Page 69
March 22-23, 2005
I mean, comments like the county does not have controls in place
to ensure the accuracy of federal reporting is a serious issue. And
expenditures have never been approved -- or actually extension dates
have been granted to some of the contracts and amounts have
appeared to be approved in excess of the amounts granted.
The management's response tends to refute that, but I'm disturbed
by the fact that there are so many comments, about the housing
department is not following established controls.
And I just would like to have a greater level of confidence that
management intends to accept these recommendations and do
something with them, because taken in total, they do indicate that
we've sort of lost control of the financial accounting processes in our
housing department.
MR. BAKER: I understand, Commissioner. Denny Baker, for
the record, Director of financial administration housing. Items like the
reconciliations are things that you're pointing out, and certainly those
are fundamental accounting controls that should be in place, they will
be in place. We've already spoken with the clerk's offices, Accountant
Jones, and they will be fixed. And if you would like, we can come
back to you in a few months and give you an update.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, that would make me feel
more comfortable, because when we're submitting federal reports that
are not accurate, I begin to get a little concerned about that.
MR. BAKER: I understand, and I believe it's true. And I'm not
making an excuse, Commissioner, but this is the first time that the
federal funds and IRA have been audited, and we take them very
seriously.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, as part of the -- as part of the
Page 70
March 22-23, 2005
committee -- as part of the committee that we put together for the
audit, it has to do with the manager's agency and all the
constitutionals, part of that committee is to -- after the audit is
finished, unlike previous years when the audit was done, everybody
put it on the shelf and said, oh, isn't that wonderful.
Well, it's not wonderful until you take what the auditors have
said, take it to heart, come up with action plans in order to fix the
problem that you have or what's been identified, so we'll get through --
we'll get through that process.
And I'd also like to tell you in the housing -- the housing side of
the house, just six months to nine months from the time we had this
audit, we were also reviewed by the State of Florida in our housing,
and we got an exemplary statement from them.
So this one really did bore down, and it's good sometimes to
really get in depth and take a look at that particular area. And it's the
first time we've had anybody really get down into it in that particular
category .
So we plan to make those corrections and come up with a plan in
order to add things to contracts that have been missing in the past if it
has to do with Florida Forever or for our transportation type issues
where they get grant monies and federal monies for that in order to
make that added to the contract. So we'll get those things corrected.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm concerned also because with
respect to prior year recommendations, there's a notation here that
suggestions were not implemented, so I'd prefer not to see those kinds
of findings next time. I mean, if we have a reason for not
implementing something, we should be able to justify it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- rather than maybe just ignore it.
MR. MUDD: Well, I think we took a -- we took a giant leap
forward as far as unpayable bills that had to do with EMS here, that
we basically updated over a four-year, five-year period of time, and
Page 71
March 22-23, 2005
we said in that executive summary we'd be coming back to you on an
annual basis.
And the other miscellaneous accounts that aren't paid within the
90 days, we'll work closely with the clerk's office in order to get those
resolved, send them out to collection agencies to make sure that they
get done, and those things that turn out to be deadbeat type bills, we'll
get those erased off our books.
But that -- but that item has been on our audit, okay, for -- ever
since I've been here, okay, and it's the first time we really got after it
here in the last year.
So we're making a concerted effort, and I think that committee
that Mr. Mitchell talked about at the beginning is a serious step
forward where we get together before we start the audit to make sure
that the instructions to the auditors are square and that everybody is in
concert with that, and not just in the words, but actually in the
meaning and the execution, then we meet with them as they're doing
the execution to see if there's any problems with any agencies that are
-- you know, that for some strange reason they don't have the
information they need to do the audit.
Then when we finally get the report -- and then you have to do
the follow-through on the particular audit before you start the next
step. So we need to have another meeting here in about a month, make
sure that the action plans are done and that people have taken the
recommendations and the results to heart, and then we're going to -- as
soon as we're done with that, then we start the next audit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. All right, Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner -- Chairman Coyle
covered the majority of the things that I had questions about also.
But overall, I think the audit went very well, and I think that
there was something else that maybe Jim Mitchell would like to
present. Now that we've got the bad stuff out of the way, hopefully
Page 72
March 22-23, 2005
we've got some additional good stuff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We might not have all the bad stuff out
of the way yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: Traditionally when we bring the CAFR to
you, we do it in a two-step process where we traditionally present to
you the Certificate for Excellence in Financial Reporting Award.
Let me tell you, our focus this year was to get this CAFR done
and to get it out timely. It is our intent to bring that award to you. We
have been given the award. And unfortunately, with our focus being
on the CAFR today, it's not our intent to present that award to you,
just to notify you that we have received it, and the finance department
will be coming to you in a future meeting with the formal presentation
of that award.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: And I think that is our -- actually, there is a
copy of the award in the CAFR. But how many years in a row is that
that we've received that award? It's the -- I think it's the 18th year in a
row that we've received that award, so that's a great accomplishment
for this county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Clearly the standards are too low.
MR. MITCHELL: Any further questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Very good. We appreciate it,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? Oh, we have
questions by some other commissioners, so don't leave.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, in his
statements, addressed my concerns.
Page 73
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, the last one. It was just a little
unclear to me with regard to the department that helps people who are
like on a really low income but live in a house that's kind of
disintegrated or really in bad repair, and they want to -- the county
will give them money to repair their house, and they can get their own
estimates from what I understand.
Here's where I got mixed up. So then do they have to submit a
copy of their cancelled check and the invoice before the -- well, if
they're so low income and say, for instance, they need a new roof,
how in the heck do they pay for it? I mean, low income people are
asking for help and, you know, maybe that -- maybe that dissuades
them from even coming to that department for this help.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, Cormac Giblin, again, for the
record. Those two were separate issues. The homeowner repair
program, the county pays money directly to the contractor upon
receipt of an invoice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. GIBLIN: The other issue was, when we deal with nonprofit
entities, they pay their own costs, and we reimburse them after they
present us with a cancelled check and invoice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much,
gentlemen.
Good seeing you again, Chip.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2005-124: APPOINTING WILLIAM RAFELDT TO
THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
Page 74
March 22-23, 2005
COMMI.TIER - A DillIED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next item, 9A.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings you to 9A, which is
appointment of a member to the Isle of Capri Fire Control District
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion we
approve William Rafeldt as recommended by the committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No opposed. It passes
unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-125: APPOINTING RICHARD SIMS TO THE
GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOE.IED
Page 75
March 22-23, 2005
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9B. It's appointment of the
member of the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Richard
Sims.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-126: APPOINTING JOHN J. BOLAND,
CHRISTOPHER SUTPHIN, JOHN DOMENIE, MAURICE JAMES
BURKE AND MA TTREW WILLIAM MA TRIAS TO THE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9C. It's
appointment of members to the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I believe on the bottom it
Page 76
March 22-23, 2005
says that there's one individual, John -- Mr. John 1. Boland that may
have a conflict, and it's my understanding that the county attorney has
gotten -- received a letter in regards to Mr. Boland resigning from the
property owners' association, so, therefore, I recommend that the order
would be John J. Boland, Christopher Sutphin, that would be
reappointment, and John Domerick (sic), and Maurice James Burke,
and then for the commercial would be Matthew Williams --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mathias.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mathias, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I can indulge, I just want to make
sure that under 13A, on that audit, that you made a motion to accept
the report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We did not, but we will.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to accept the financial
report?
Page 77
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOA, which
is a recommendation to award a $7,596,000 construction contract to
Vanderbilt Bay Construction for the construction of the Vanderbilt
Beach parking garage, project 90295, and approve the necessary
budget amendments to include commercial financing.
Mr. Len Price, Administrator of Administrative Services, and Mr.
Ron Hovell, Principal Project Manager of Facilities Management, will
present.
MR. PRICE: Somebody's missing in action.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, if I could have your
indulgence, we'll skip this item until Mr. Hovell comes back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #lOC
RESOLUTION 2005-127: AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION TO
ACQUIRE THE RIGHT -OF- WAY NECESSARY FOR THE
WIDENING OF COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM TWO LANES TO
SIX LANES BETWEEN GOLDEN GA TE BOULEVARD AND
Page 78
March 22-23, 2005
MR. MUDD: And that will bring us to item 10C, which is a
recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation to
acquire the right-of-way necessary for the widening of Collier
Boulevard from two lanes to six lanes between Golden Gate
Boulevard and Immokalee Road, and Mr. Feder, Administrator of
Transportation sSrvices, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion by commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Norman, do you need to put some things on the
record, sir?
MR. FEDER: I'll try and be very brief, but yes I do. I need to
make sure that it's acknowledged that the board has reviewed all the
attached information which shows that different alignment
considerations were taken into account, that, in fact, this is consistent
with our long-range transportation plan and bringing forth a needed
improvement here in the county. And in particular, those items as
cited in your executive summary in the agenda package.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We do have them here, along
with the executive summary, and we have also gone over them in
previous workshops and meetings. So we have a motion on the floor.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 79
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2005-128: OPPOSING ENACTMENT INTO LAW
PROPOSED HOUSE BILL 1173 AND SENATE BILL 2303
RELATING TO NEW REGULATIONS CONTROLLING THE
IMPLEMENTATION, COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF
IMPACT FEES BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT WILL HAVE
A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO
PROVIDE NECESSARY AND REQUIRED GROWTH-RELATED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 10D. It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution opposing
enactment into law proposed House Bill 11 73 and Senate Bill 2302
relating to new regulations controlling the implementation, collection,
and expenditure of impact fees by local governments that will have a
detrimental effect on the county's ability to provide necessary and
required growth-related capital improvements.
Mr. Joseph Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development
and Environmental Services will present, if you need him to present,
but I believe --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I make a motion that we
approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that, but I think we -_
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think this is worth a little bit of
discussion to tell the public what's happening here, because this is a
Page 80
March 22-23, 2005
very serious issue, and I think all the commissioners, at least most of
them, seem to be violently opposed to this action, including me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Me too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services Administrator. With me today
is Amy Patterson, my Impact Fee Coordinator.
We can go through a briefing to highlight all the changes, but to
put this in a nutshell, Commissioner, if this bill passes, I will be
presenting to the manager probably a proposal either to go into some
type of moratorium or at least a rate of growth ordinance until we
assess the impacts, because the drastic impact this will have on impact
fees and the ability of the county to provide the needed infrastructure
to support growth and development will be completely curtailed and,
frankly, almost unable to at least effectively implement. So with that
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It essentially guts the county's growth
management plan --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and impairs our ability to control
development unless we do just declare a moratorium, which I guess
some people would like.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the manager certainly would be faced,
and so would the board, with the decision on how to fund the needed
infrastructure to support growth, the entire AUIR process, we would
be on our -- basically on our ear, if you want to put it in that
perspective, in the ability to financially support the needed
infrastructure to support continued growth and development.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me, if I can, just highlight a couple
of other things about this bill.
Number one, it would essentially transfer the cost of funding
Page 81
March 22-23, 2005
growth to our existing citizens to a large degree so that growth would
no longer pay for growth.
Now, we have a basic philosophy here that growth will pay for
growth. This particular bill undermines that philosophy.
Secondly, if will change the timing of when impact fees are
collected, whereas, right now we collect 50 percent of them very, very
early, at site plan approval, not at the time of permit approval. We
collect them much earlier than that.
MR. MUDD: For roads.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For roads, for roads. And this bill will
eliminate our ability to do that. So it has some very serious
implications, and if this bill passed and we were to go into a
moratorium, we do not have the luxury of maintaining the moratorium
because state law requires that we have a plan for getting out of a
moratorium. So the state would then require that we increase taxes,
property taxes, to generate the funds to get us out of the moratorium
that this bill proposal would cause.
So it's a very, very serious issue. And I see it as an attempt to
undermine the ability of Collier County government to manage
growth in Collier County.
And with that, we've got Commissioner Halas and Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not only that, it would be a great
impact here to Collier County but also to most of the counties in
Florida, and there are many counties that are in the interior portion of
the state who are at maximum of 10 mills, and how they would ever
address growth is beyond me.
So this bill is very, very detrimental not only to Collier County
but for the whole State of Florida. And if the legislators up there want
to see soup lines, why, I think this is a good way they're going to see
them. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
Page 82
,.,-----"---~----"-<"._---~
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, speaking about soup lines,
if the legislature does pass this, I think we need to put a seizure on any
-- filling any positions within the county and have to reevaluate
throughout the whole organization, a reorganization, and possibly
creating a soup line.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The good thing is, we
commissioners, plus staff, went up to the legislators last week to let
them know of our opposition to this plan, and we let them know very
strongly and succinctly, and the good thing is they heard us. So let's
hope that other commissioners around the State of Florida will be
doing the same.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I'd like to add
to that, Commissioner Fiala. We need the helps (sic) of our citizens to
interact with the state representatives in a big way to let them know
that they're opposed to any new mandates coming down from
Tallahassee that will greatly affect our ability to be able to function as
a county government and will cause the cost of doing business to go
up.
So, please, pay attention to what's happening. It's through your
interjection that we'll be able to turn this around and change the issue
to something that will be more favorable for Collier County and all the
counties in Florida.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And I will conclude this
discussion, I hope, by providing the following information to the
public.
Please call your state representative or senator and tell them that
you oppose House Bill 1173 and Senate Bill 2302. This is very, very
important.
I urge you to contact your legislators, state legislators, and stop
Page 83
March 22-23, 2005
this bill.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we're going to approve this
resolution, I presume. I need a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, a second by --
MS. FILSON: I already have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's a motion. It's already been
seconded, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's a motion on the floor and a
second.
MS. FILSON: I have a motion by--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who did that?
MS. FILSON: I have a motion by Commissioner Fiala and a
second by Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need to tell me about this when
these things happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if you'd join us a bit more
quickly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 84
March 22-23, 2005
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2005-129: SUPPORTING ENACTMENT INTO
LAW PROPOSED FLORIDA SENATE BILL 1940 AND HOUSE
BILL 1461 RELATING TO STATUTORY PROVISIONS
CONTROLLING THE DISTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE OF
GASOLlliRTAX ffiOCEEDS - ADOEIED
MR. MUDD: The next item is item 10E. It's a recommendation
to adopt a resolution supporting enactment into law proposed Florida
Senate Bill 1940 and House Bill 1461 relating to statutory provisions
controlling the distribution and expenditure of gasoline tax proceeds.
This basically is the item where we're going to index gas taxes that
this board's been supporting for the last three years.
And Mr. Norm Feder, the administrator for transportation
division, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 85
March 22-23, 2005
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2005-130: OPPOSING ENACTMENT INTO LAW
PROPOSED HOUSE BILL 1251 AND SENATE BILL 2424
DELETING THE EXISTING STATUTORY PROVISION THAT
WAIVES A REFERENDUM TO LEVY AD VALOREM TAXES
FOR PROVIDING MUNICIPAL SERVICES WITHIN A
MR. MUDD: Sir, the next item is a recommendation to adopt a
resolution opposing enactment into law proposed House Bill 1251 and
Senate Bill 2424, deleting the existing statutory provision that waives
a referendum to levy ad valorem taxes for providing municipal
services within a municipal service taxing unit, and Mr. Norm Feder,
administrator of transportation division, will present.
MR. FEDER: Very briefly. What this bill purports to do is to
provide the municipal service taxing units where there's a provision
that basically excludes the requirement for a referendum, it would
remove that exclusion, therefore, requiring a referendum for each
MSTU to be established.
That's a very onerous process and one that would, again, take
away from the county's ability when, and in each case, more than 50
percent of the community has asked for additional services above and
beyond and has said that they are willing to provide additional
taxation for that service or item, and a referendum would make that
process extremely onerous.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think it's important to note here
that we have many communities that have come to us and said they're
willing to pay additional taxes if they can receive additional services,
and we've been able to accommodate their requests without the
onerous requirements of a referendum. This is a way we can serve our
Page 86
March 22-23, 2005
constituents more effectively, and they're trying to take that right away
from us with this bill, so -- did I correctly portray that?
MR. FEDER: Very well, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then any--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we oppose the
enactment of this law.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion is to approve staffs
recommendation to oppose this particular law --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Halas, and a second
by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to add also that, as
Commissioner Coletta said earlier, that this is something that you need
to send to Tallahassee to your legislators up there, and this is in
regards to House Bill 1251 and Senate Bill 2424. It's very important
that you let your people -- your elected officials up in Tallahassee
know that we don't approve of this and that we need to make sure that
this tax stays -- this MSTU provision stays intact as it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Now there was no one opposed to that motion, right?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That passes unanimously.
Page 87
March 22-23, 2005
Item #10A
AWARD A $7,596,000 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
V ANDERBIL T BAY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH PARKING
GARAGE, PROJECT NO. 90295, AND APPROVAL OF THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO INCLUDE
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'd like to go back to lOA now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I think we've found some people. The
recommendation, it's -- this is lOA. It's a recommendation to award a
$7,596,000 construction contract to Vanderbilt Bay Construction for
the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage, project
90295, and approve the necessary budget amendments to include
commercial financing.
Mr. Ron Hovell, Principal Project Manager, Facilities
Management will present.
MR. HOVELL: Good morning, Commissioners. Ron Hovell,
Principal Project Manager in the Facilities Management Department.
The Vanderbilt Beach parking garage, we're going to talk about
the funding required, the proposed financing and contract award.
This proj ect was originally approved in October of 2000 at $3.8
million, but as you're aware, there was a legal challenge. The
settlement agreement was approved in November of 2003 that both
restricted the height of the garage as well as required a trellis to be
placed on the rooftop area.
And I'll just back up just a second to this picture. As you'll see in
the artist's rendering, you'll notice that this parking garage is three
story. All the parking is level. It's not a ramp up and down. And
Page 88
March 22-23, 2005
you'll notice down on the left of the drawing, you'll see that, in
essence, half circle that gets you from one floor up to the next.
So those two items, the trellis and that -- the designer calls it a
helix system, are a result of that settlement agreement and
significantly added to the cost of the proj ect, which we'll get to in a
minute.
So ultimately we are able to go out for bids, and the low bid was
from Vanderbilt Bay Construction, that's just under $7.6 million, and
therefore when we consider all the other things we have to pay for,
we're looking at an $8.6 million project budget that's needed.
On the financing side, in December of2003, this board approved
a tourist development category A funding policy that laid out that
beach parking facilities, including this garage in the future, would be
paid for from the $2 million set aside but that the preexisting approved
project would not be subject to that policy.
In February and March of this year the Coastal Advisory
Committee recommended financing, quote-unquote, their portion of
this project, to help ease the cash flow for some major beach
renourishment projects that are due to be constructed next winter.
But it went -- when it went to the Tourist Development Council
at the end of February, they did not recommend the financing scheme
for this garage, or maybe more specifically, I don't think they
recommended this garage at this price.
On the 16th of March, this project went to the Parks and Rec.
Advisory Board, and they recommended proceeding with the award of
the bids that have been in at that point.
Assuming financing is recommended -- or approved today by the
board, the next step would be to go to the finance advisory committee,
and they would bring back a resolution to the board for approval.
The bottom line is, we're looking at an $8 million proposal for
commercial paper loan, $4 million worth of principal and interest to be
paid back from the parks and rec. set-aside, and $4 million to be paid
Page 89
March 22-23, 2005
back from the, what most people have called the beach portion of the
tourist tax category A funding.
That split out was due to the fact that the original budget for this
year was $4.6 million; $600,000 for design and whatnot, and $4
million towards construction, once we realized the actual construction
costs, that's why the other $4 million was proposed to come out of the
parks and rec. set-aside.
The construction contract, as you may recall, a couple weeks
back you approved the cancellation of the invitation to qualify. We'd
gone out hoping to find firms that had built parking garages in the
past, because we have a pretty tight site up there, and there's a lot of
concern with the lack of a staging area and lay down area and the
ability to do this project without -- with the least amount of impact to
the local community.
But that process only resulted in one recommended company
with that kind of background, so obviously you couldn't then go on
and compete price with only one company.
So we did go out for a standard invitation to bid open to any
bidders. Again, we only received two bids, one from Vanderbilt Bay
Construction for 7,596,000 and the other from Lodge Construction for
$7,636,210.
But the bottom line recommendation is we're recommending
today to approve the award of a standard construction contract to
Vanderbilt Bay Construction for the $7,596,000 and endorse the use
of commercial paper financing in the amount of $8 million and
approve all the necessary budget amendments to bring this all
together.
Can I address any of your questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, questions?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that, and I just want to
Page 90
March 22-23, 2005
say that this is something that's been very much needed, and I know a
parking garage is very expensive. When we look at 20 to 40 years
down the road, this is going to be an investment that's going to be very
well received by the community, especially hopefully we can get
additional people to the beach.
And I believe there's also in this proposal that we're going to have
additional facilities there, bathroom facilities and so on, that are going
to be incorporated in this whole project also; is that correct?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir, bathrooms.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And to me that's a primary concern
as far as when you get residents to the beach. I appreciate that very
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just wanted to ask you, is this a
two-story or three-story building?
MR. HOVELL: It's ground level plus two stories above that. A
total of three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have just a couple questions.
Ron, when you appeared before the TDC, you mentioned a price
somewhere in the range of $10.2 million. How does that relate to this
particular bid?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. In your executive summary package,
we laid out a table of commercial financing. The $8.6 million is just
the direct costs that we'll have to pay. Depending on the interest rates,
we laid it out in the table at 2, 3, 4, and 5 percent, just to give you an
idea.
We anticipate somewhere in the range of 2 to 3 percent based on
current rates if we go forward in a timely manner. But yes, it will add
somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two million dollars,
depending on which rate we're able to get.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The rate you get. So we're looking at
Page 91
March 22-23, 2005
roughly 10 million or more for the total costs?
MR. HOVELL: Well, if it's in the 2 to 3 percent range, it will
probably be nine something, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. And I suspect we have
majority support on this board, but I'm going to vote against it. Here's
why, not because I don't like the garage. My point is that for 9 or $10
million, we can accommodate a lot more people using another
alternative.
We're going to create 250 new parking spaces, if I remember
correctly, as a result of expending almost $10 million. While it's a
nice garage, I think it's well designed, I know the people worked hard
to get it, it serves a good purpose, I just think if you could take that
amount of money, you could serve a lot more than 250 people in
Collier County and try to find places for them to park to get them to
the beach. So I will vote against it for that reason.
I'll now call the question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But, Commissioner, can I just say
one thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that we're having a
partnership with the hotel so that we are going to incur some rent on
this after hours when they have large events at the Ritz-Carlton. I
believe that's part of the -- part of the financing or the package so that
basically it will be cost effective in the long run, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I haven't seen any evidence of that,
but do you have some estimates of the revenue?
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, Administrator of
Public Services. In the settlement agreement that we did with WCI,
there is a clause in there that the Ritz-Carlton can use it after hours for
valet parking. We have not discussed dollar amounts with them yet,
but that is an option. We have not put that revenue stream into our
system yet.
Page 92
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much. I
just wanted to say that when it comes to providing for the public and
beach access, that you're right, there should be more than one way to
do it, and I do agree that, you know, taking people and moving them
to the beaches is a very effective way to do it, but I would say that
would be in addition to a parking garage.
We have such a shortage in the inventory of ability to get the
people to the beaches that it's just begging for all sorts of solutions,
and I see this as one of many solutions, but I also endorse what you
were talking about, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to look at them all, and that's
the only concern. I was hoping that maybe for $10,000 (sic) we could
accommodate 500 people or 1,000 people to get them to the beaches,
but that mayor may not be the case, and I understand it's subject to
debate. But I just want you to understand where I stand on the issue.
So I'll call the question.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign. Aye.
So it passes 4-1.
Item #10H
RESOLUTION 2005-131: OPPOSING HOUSE BILL 1325, AND
ANY SIMILAR FLORIDA STATUTES, THAT WILL SEVERELY
LIMIT ALL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES FROM
PROVIDING CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Page 93
March 22-23, 2005
SERVICES, AS WELL AS ACQUIRING (OR EVEN
CONTRACTING WITH) TAX-PAYING WATER AND/OR
WASTEWATER ENTITIES, INCLUDING REQUIRING THE
ACQUIRING GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE TO PAY AD
VALOREM AND OTHER TAXES BEING PAID BY THE TAX
PAYING ENTITY, AND REGARDING ALL SUCH SERVICES,
THAT THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION MUST
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a -- well, maybe we can
do another one. The -- let's try to do 10H, because I'd say we could
probably get Mr. DeLony's done, but I know better.
10H, and that is basically to oppose House Bill 1325 and that was
-- that was an add-on, and it basically is a recommendation to adopt a
resolution opposing House Bill 1325 and any similar Florida statutes
that will severely limit all governmental authorities from providing
cable and telecommunication services, as well as acquiring or even
contracting with tax paying water and/or wastewater entities,
including requiring -- requiring the acquiring government to continue
to pay ad valorem and other tax being paid by the tax paying entity
and regarding all such services that the Florida Public Services
Commission must rule in favor of the tax paying entity.
Mr. French from community --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: -- development's environmental services will
present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussions by commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
Page 94
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll a call-- any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I will call the question.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seeing none, it is approved
unanimously.
Item #101
AMENDMENT NO.3: TO EXTEND THE TIME AND AMOUNT
OF THE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT BY PBS&J, INC., FOR THE GOODLETTE-FRANK
ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD
TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60134-
.A.E:eR OVEn
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we might even be able to do 101,
which was 16B5. I believe you had some concerns and some
questions about the Goodlette- Frank CEI contract or change order on
that particular item.
And 16B5 was a recommendation to approve amendment three to
extend the time and amount of the contract for professional services
agreement by PS -- excuse me -- PBS&J, Inc., for the Goodlette-Frank
Road improvement project from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach
Road, project number 60134, fiscal impact $152,197, and Mr. Norman
Page 95
March 22-23, 2005
Feder, your Administrator for Transportation, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Norm, the only thing I want to
clarify here is that this is an extension for the project manager, not the
contractor.
MR. FEDER: The construction engineering inspection.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Inspection. Okay.
MR. FEDER: And what I need to touch base to clarify on that,
sir, is that the contractor, Ajax we have granted them on recent
actions, where they asked for a total of about 47 days, 23 days to
resolve the last of the utility constricts that resulted on that project.
That puts their final completion as of tomorrow.
After that date, they face over $5,000 a day that we plan on
instituting liquidated damages. And I will tell you that they're going to
protest and pursue additional days be awarded, but the CEI, the
construction engineering inspection, Post, Buckley, on this job. Their
role is to oversee the project, make sure it is built according to the
designs.
And where we run into these issues, they require us to modify,
and, therefore, to add days, to modify the design package, work with
those days and manage them so that we only grant additional days as
is required, and then lastly, to make sure they build -- establish as built
plans so that those surprises that we experience in utilities
underground are things that are not surprises in the future.
So, yes, this is only for the one managing the contract, not the
contractor, and the contractor will be in default as of Thursday.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thursday. Okay. So let me summarize,
see if I got this right. We have some dispute with the contractor that
they have not done this job as quickly as they should have.
MR. FEDER: Very definitely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They have said they needed additional
time of 46 --
MR. FEDER: Forty-seven days.
Page 96
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 47 days. We have examined it and
granted them 23 days, and that will expire on Thursday of this week.
After that, they will be faced with $5,000 a day penalties for failure to
complete that construction. The action that you're requesting our
approval for today is to only provide us with the construction
inspection services --
MR. FEDER: To continue to monitor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- necessary to continue to monitor what
that contractor does, and is -- in no way rewards the contractor for
being late on the job; is that a fair statement?
MR. FEDER: Very fair, the only difference is actually they're in
penalty after tomorrow. On Thursday they're in penalty.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, understand.
Any questions or comments, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
No further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you say aye?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. I sure did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then it's unanimous.
Page 97
March 22-23, 2005
Item #12A
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 286.011 (8) FLA. STAT., TO DISCUSS STRATEGY
RELATED TO LITIGATION IN THE PENDING CASE OF
COLLIER COUNTY V. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS AND CITY OF NAPLES, CASE NO. 04-1048GM,
PENDING IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND THE SECOND DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 2DCA#2D05-392 - A MOTION
WAS MADE TO OFFER THE CITY OF NAPLES $10,000 FOR
HARD COSTS - AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this would now move this board
into closed session under item 12A. This item to be heard at 12 noon
on March 22nd, 2005, to discuss strategy related to the litigation in the
pending case of Collier County versus the Department of Community
Affairs and the City of Naples, case number 04-1 048GM, pending in
the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings in the Second
District Court of Appeals, case number 2DCA#2D05-392, and we'll
go to closed session, and we'll come back and continue this meeting at
one p.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you very much.
(A closed session was held, a luncheon recess was had, and the
proceedings continued as follows in open session:)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are back in session.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
I'm going to need to get one more commissioner in here, I
believe, before we can -- before we can officially start.
So just bear with me for just a second, ladies and gentlemen,
because this takes a supermajority in the particular thing.
Leo, if you could do that.
Page 98
March 22-23, 2005
Jacqueline, are you ready finish this issue?
Mr. Chairman, there's one thing that you need to get
accomplished before we start the one o'clock time certain, and this
shouldn't take long.
We had a closed session meeting to talk about item 12A, and I
believe you need -- we did that on a closed session, now we need to
come back into the sunshine, okay, if the board directs any particular
action, and Ms. Jacqueline Hubbard-Robinson from the county
attorney's office is here to present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Jackie, go ahead.
MS. HUBBARD: All right. What we were requesting is a
motion from the Board of County Commissioners to the effect that the
county will -- attorney's office will be directed to offer to the City of
Naples in the City of Naples versus -- Collier County versus City of
Naples administrative proceeding an offer to settle the matter for the
hard costs that have been expended by the city in the amount of up to
$10,000. The amount will be up to you -- and trans -- and order us to
transmit that to the attorney for the City of Naples.
It's my understanding that once that is transmitted to the City of
Naples counsel, he will place it on the agenda for discussion by the
county -- I mean, the counsel for the city.
And at the same time, you should be aware that we have an
appeal pending and there's a deadline for our filing of the initial brief,
and we need some direction from the board regarding whether or not
-- in the event the City of Naples accepts the offer to settle the matter
for a $10,000 payment of their hard cost, in exchange they would, of
course, dismiss their motion for attorney fees and we would dismiss
our appeal.
In the event the offer is reject -- and hopefully they will accept it.
In the event the offer is rejected, we need some direction from the
board regarding whether or not we shall continue to pursue the appeal.
I would like to remind the board that the drafting of the initial
Page 99
March 22-23, 2005
brief is already underway and would be completed by myself from our
office and would not involve outside counsel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there a
motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we offer the
City of Naples $10,000 for hard copy --
MS. HUBBARD: Hard costs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Our hard costs, excuse me, and that
we would not (sic) proceed with the appeal if they turn this down, but
if they reject it, then we'll probably go ahead with the appeal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'd just like to add that I
hope the city accepts this because I think it would benefit the
taxpayers, not only in the county, but in the city, in regards to bringing
this to an end.
Thank you.
MS. HUBBARD: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 100
March 22-23, 2005
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2005-15: PETITION PUDZ-2004-AR-5967
ECOVENTURE WIGGINS PASS, LTD., REPRESENTED BY
ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP, OF RW A, INC. AND RICHARD D.
YOV ANOVICH, ESQUIRE, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN &
JOHNSON REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE C-4 ZONING
DISTRICT TO A "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE COCONILLA
PUD. THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR 95
DWELLING UNITS IN TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS WITH 10
FLOORS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS OVER ONE FLOOR OF
PARKING, A PUBLIC USE TRACT ADJACENT TO
COCOHA TCHEE RIVER PARK AND A MARINA BASIN
CONTAINING 29 WET SLIPS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
AT 13635 VANDERBILT DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FL,
::l::
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that brings us to our time certain
item of 1 :00 p.m., and it's now 1 :04. And it's basically going to start
with item 8B. And this item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2004-AR-5967, EcoVenture Wiggins Pass, LTD,
represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, ofRW A, Inc., and Richard
D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette and Coleman and Johnson
requesting a rezone from the C-4 zoning district to a PUD, planned
unit development, zoning district to be known as the Coconilla PUD.
The proposed change would allow for 95 dwelling units and two
residential towers with 10 floors of residential units over one floor of
parking, a public use tract adjacent to the Cocohatchee River Park and
a marina basin containing 29 wet slips.
Page 101
March 22-23,2005
The property is located at 13637 Vanderbilt Drive in Section 17,
Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of 10.45 plus or minus acres.
And with the chairman's indulgence, I'll also read 7B so that
when everybody's swearing in, then we'll get them all in at the same
time in disclosing and we'll get that resolved.
Is that okay, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be fine.
MR. MUDD: Item 7B which follows 8B, this item is to be heard
immediately following 8B, which is scheduled for 1 :00 p.m. on March
22nd, 2005.
This item requires that all participants again be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's conditional
use 2004-AR-6625, Eco Venture Wiggins Pass, Limited, represented
by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, ofRWA Consulting, Inc., and Richard
D. Y ovanovich -- and Richard D. Y ovanovich --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, look it.
MR. MUDD: See, the drum roll before I get to Mr.
Yovanovich's name -- and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of
Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, requesting a conditional use of the
C-4 zoning district for a hotel and spa per chapter 2.04.03 of the land
development code.
The subject property consisting of 10.45 acres is located at 13635
Vanderbilt Drive in Section 17, Township 48 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the
record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of Community
Development/Environmental Services division. With me today, Mike
Bosi --
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, you need to swear in.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Everyone who's going to
Page 102
March 22-23,2005
participate in these proceedings, please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Jim, could we have someone
check and see what's wrong with this ventilator back here?
MR. SCHMITT: We have somebody checking on it.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Ochs and Ms. Price are on their way already.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, Mr. Chairman, for the record, Joe
Schmitt, administrator of Community Development/Environmental
Services division.
With me today, Mike Bosi, principal planner and Ray Bellows,
zonIng manager --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Joe, forgive me for just a moment. We
have to have ex parte disclosure for the Board of County
Commissioners.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Gentlemen, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had numerous meetings
and numerous e-mails, I've met with constituents, I met with staff on
this thing, and all of my ex parte is located back here, including a
large box of information. And with that, I guess that's about the whole
disclosure here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I've had a record number
of meetings, a record number of e-mails. I think this is one of the
most proactive citizens' efforts I've ever seen from about three
different sides. This is a portion of it. You did a good job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have met with the petitioner and
the petitioner's representatives, I have met with the residents on both
sides of this issue, I've received e-mails, letters, everything you can
Page 103
March 22-23, 2005
imagine, telephone calls, and that's all in my public records file behind
me. If anyone wishes to see it, contact my secretary, she'll be happy
to give it to you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have received many,
many phone calls, e-mails, I've had conversations with residents, I've
gone to visit them in their homes and taken a look from their patios
when I've been invited, I've had conversations with the petitioner and
with his representatives and with staff and -- on numerous occasions,
and as I say, I've had phone calls as well from many different people.
Oh, and we have a box of petitions back here also that I've got. I
can't pick up all of this stuff to show you because it's so -- it's about
this tall. But I want to tell you, it's all here if anybody wants to sift
through it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's all here, including the box.
And if anybody wishes to review it, feel free. Also, but not limited to,
I spoke to a reporter on this issue, and I did not meet with anybody.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Okay, Joe, you
can proceed now.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Well, just to -- I want to preface and
start this so you understand where we're going.
Before you today are two items. Item 7B, which is a proposal for
a conditional use for a hotel and spa within a C-4 district, and item 8B,
a request to rezone the C-4 district from C-4 to PUD for the
construction of a 95-unit two-residential-tower project.
I wish to stress to the board that this is somewhat unique in that
the petitioner submitted two land use petitions simultaneously, and as
such, staff processed and scheduled these petitions to be heard at the
same public hearings.
Though unique, the process is in no way a violation of our land
development code. Likewise, though related, please note that these
Page 104
March 22-23, 2005
petitions are not companion items. They are mutually exclusive, that
is, they are separate and distinct petitions.
In addition, please note that this is not an either/or situation. You
certainly have the right and the authority to deny both requests, and as
such, the site will remain C-4.
Considering the public -- considering that the public will most
likely address both petitions, I would recommend, and with your
concurrence, to allow the petitioner to present both proposals so that
you have an overall understanding of both of the projects.
With item 8B, as Mr. Mudd noted, the residential PUD, the first
petition, followed by the conditional use request, then the staff
summary, and then closing comments from the petitioner.
I recommend that you then -- well, it wouldn't be closing
comments then. But I recommend that at that time you allow for
public comments -- public comments are certainly going to address
both petitions -- followed by the closing comments from the petitioner
and staff. So with your concurrence, we would proceed along those
lines.
I would then propose that you hold the vote for both -- wait for
the final comments from the petitioner and staff, and that you vote on
item 8B first, and then followed by item 7B. So if you -- with your
concurrence, we'll proceed along those guidelines.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That will be fine.
MR. SCHMITT: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner for both petitions.
With me today -- and not all are going to speak, but I wanted to
introduce the whole team -- is Ed Oelschlaeger with the Eco Group.
Our professional planner on the project is RW A, both Bob Mulhere
and Dwight Nadeau are planners working on this project. Mr. Nadeau
Page 105
March 22-23, 2005
will be speaking to you today. Bob Hall is the architect on the project;
Ken Humiston will address some of the environmental issues; Ron
Talone (phonetic) is our transportation consultant. He will not be
speaking unless you have specific questions.
Joe Tucker with Mactec is here to address other environmental
issues mainly related to clean up, if you have any questions regarding
that, otherwise he's not going to be speaking; Eddie Woodruff with
Passarella is here to address, if you have questions regarding listed
species and wetland issues; Doug Realstone is co-counsel with me and
can address any environmental/legal issues you may have; and,
finally, Thad Kirkpatrick is the owner's attorney, who is also here.
The order of presentation will basically be me addressing project
overview and consistency with the compo plan, Mr. Nadeau will then
give his professional planning opinion regarding compatibility, Mr.
Humiston will address some of the issues we take exception to
regarding the EAC recommendation, Bob Hall is the architect who
will take you through some of the site planning and architectural
issues, and then staff would go, and then we would reserve our time to
respond to any public comment.
It may go a little bit quicker if you allow the entire team
presentation. We may address some of your questions, but it's
certainly up to the chair. If you want to ask questions at any time,
we're available to answer any of your questions.
I wanted to first include for the record a copy of the transcript for
the hearing before the Planning Commission, just enter that into the
record. I know a lot of people have seen the replay, and I just want to
include that in the record.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, county attorney, I'd like to make
a note for the record, and that is, with the introduction of the Planning
Commission transcript to the record, which is voluminous, I would
like the record to reflect that you do not -- are not reading it at this
time at the hearing. It is merely being placed of record.
Page 106
March 22-23,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then we'll go ahead and move into
the proj ect summary.
As you know, you have two different petitions in front of you.
One is for a planned unit development and one is for a conditional use
for a destination resort hotel.
The planned unit development is for a 10.45-acre site, which is
currently zoned C-4. It's adjacent to the county park.
Let me jump back a second. Let's deal with the consistency with
the compo plan issues. On your -- Jim, do I just go to laptop?
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On your visualizer -- thank you -- is the
future land use map for Collier County. And I want to address some
of the compo plan issues. Your staff did a very good job of
summarizing the issues, but I just wanted to briefly touch on those for
the purposes of the record.
As your staff report indicates, the county's compo plan was
originally adopted in 1989. The county went to an activity center
concept for commercial development. This particular parcel would
not qualify as commercial under today's comprehensive plan. It was
designated C-4 because a marina existed on the site and that C-4 use
was found consistent with the compo plan and, therefore, commercial
is allowed to occur.
The county provides an incentive for properties that are zoned
commercial to convert to residential when they're in a location where
commercial is not authorized under the comprehensive plan.
The density rating system specifically provides for this
conversion, and the conversion is for up to 16 units per acre. This
density bonus provision, as your staff indicates, applies to commercial
properties within the coastal high hazard area.
In fact, as your staff report indicates, there's been a precedent
Page 107
, ...._ or ...... _______.'"
March 22-23, 2005
where the board has, in fact, applied the density bonus conversion
along Bonita Beach Road in the coastal high hazard area, has applied
this provision to the conversion of commercial to residential, and that
was a conversion to 16 units per acre from a previous commercial use.
So we're not asking you to do anything different than you've already
done in the past.
There are several portions of the county, as you know based upon
your future land use map, and your staff report indicates that in 19 --
when the compo plan was adopted, there was specific discussion
regarding limiting densities in various areas of the county.
And on your map, which I don't know if you can read it very
clearly, is the urban coastal area, and that's the crosshatched area that's
basically south of U.S. 41.
In that area there are some limitations for density bonuses and
one of those deals with affordable housing. Instead of a bonus of up
to eight units per acre, it's limited to six units per acre. So there was
specific and deliberate discussion about how density bonuses would
be applied in Collier County.
The reason for that area having a limitation on density, as you
can see, is it's in the south part of the county. It's an area where the
evacuation times are much greater than in the northern portion of the
county .
And as your staff report indicates, our property, it has a
recommendation of evacuation time of 18 hours. In fact, we have an
evacuation time of nine and a half hours, so we greatly exceed the
comprehensive plan's evacuation time and your -- and Dan Summers
has provided testimony through your executive summary, that
evacuation time is not an issue in this portion of Collier County.
There are other provisions in the density bonus provisions within
your comprehensive plan that talks about limitations of where density
bonuses apply, and I'll go through those. One of them is the
residential density band around an activity center. Your compo plan
Page 108
March 22-23, 2005
specifically says that you will not allow the residential bonus to be
applied in a coastal high hazard area. So your compo plan addresses it
specifically there.
Residential infill where you can, if you're less than 20 acres, you
can ask for a density bonus of up to three units per acre. Your compo
plan, again, specifically says, it doesn't apply in the coastal high
hazard area. And, you know, finally your TDR provisions say you
cannot transfer units into the coastal high hazard area.
The point of that discussion is that the board specifically
addressed the areas where they wanted to limit density bonuses. They
specifically limited it in those areas where they did -- didn't want the
bonuses to apply.
There is no limitation in the future land use elements density
rating system on the conversion of commercial to residential; there are
no limitations. So we can ask for up to 16 units per acre as your staff
report indicates. And we'll have to deal with those issues of
compatibility and evacuation times, which the record is clear that we
do not negatively affect the evacuation times.
So from a comprehensive plan perspective, we're 100 percent
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
DCA in your previous hearing -- briefly, DCA said basically the
decision's up to you. There's no state statute that you'd be violating by
approving the density we're requesting, so that's -- there's no issues
from the state's perspective.
I want to go into briefly the project and surrounding
developments. This is an area -- aerial of the area. You can see the
former marina site at the intersection of Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt
Drive. It's on the west side, obviously, which would be the top of the
screen on this particular case.
Around us are several proj ects that either are approved for
high-rises or have already had high-rises constructed, and I'll briefly
take you through those.
Page 109
__.,.,.._.."_....,_..~"'_,O,'"',......._"".-'v,~~,~"._,,,,,,",__...,,.,~~,,.__.....
March 22-23, 2005
To our north where the arrow's indicating, there's an existing
17 -story building, approximately 190 feet in height, and that's the
Arbor Trace building. To the south of Arbor Trace is the approved
Cocohatchee Bay PUD. It's approved for four buildings that are 20
stories, maximum height of 200 feet, and one building that's 15 stories,
and the IS-story building is the most northern building on this exhibit.
The interesting thing about that PUD is you don't count the
parking levels in the height of the building. So we would assume that
on a 20-story building, you'll probably have two levels of parking
below that building, so you're probably looking at 230, 240, maybe
even higher, buildings than the 20 stories, and probably over 170 feet
for the 15-story building, and that's an approved PUD.
This is our proj ect. It contains two towers, a north tower and a
south tower. There are 10 stories over one level of parking. Overall
height, and this is your truth in advertising height, not your zoned
height, is 144 feet.
Adjacent to us is the Pelican Isle Yacht Club, which contains
three towers, each of which is 10 stories over parking. The overall
height is 130 feet, 9 inches. The density on that site is up to 11 units
per acre. So it has -- it's more dense than what we're requesting,
which is nine and a half units per acre.
To our south is the Marina Bay Club, which is 10 stories over
parking. The overall height is approximately 130 feet.
A little further south is The Dunes. It has three towers, 12 stories
over one level of parking. The overall height is approximately 160
feet.
And Cove Towers to the east of us is three towers, 15 stories over
two levels of parking. Overall height is approximately 193 feet, and
two towers of 13 stories over one level of parking. Overall height is
approximately 173 feet.
So we're clearly asking for building heights that's been
established in the area, so compatibility is not an issue from building
Page 110
March 22-23, 2005
height -- from a building height perspective.
I do want to, before I get into the site plan, talk about the
neighborhood information meeting which we held. It was very well
attended. I would say approximately 200 people were in the audience.
And I think the concerns from the residents was, one, they wanted to
us reduce traffic and, two, they did not want us to develop a straight
commercial proj ect.
It was clear to me from the sentiment of the groups, that they
clearly wanted the residential option first. That's what they really
want approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And if that's
not approved, they wanted the destination resort hotel approved.
In fact, the North Bay Civic Association put this to a vote when
Mr. Oelschlaeger was present, and the initial vote was in favor of the
residential. I think it was 20 to 17; 20 in favor of residential, 1 7 in
favor of the destination resort hotel.
Some people left and the vote flipped, and it was 17 in favor of
the destination resort hotel and 15 in favor of the residential. So it's
clearly not a black and white issue from north -- the membership of
North Bay that attended that meeting as to what they do or they do not
want.
I do want to point out that since that meeting, North Bay has filed
legal briefs against both petitions, so I don't know. I'm assuming
they're sticking to that position at this time.
I want to briefly take you through the site plan and the project.
Again, this is -- the site plan shows you that we're immediately
adjacent to the county park. You can see the future public use tract to
the south is where we will work with the county at our expense to
reconfigure the county's parking. This is a little closer-up view of the
site plan that shows you the locations of the buildings. We have a
northern tower and a southern tower.
I want to go through the development standards. The residential
plan as proposed has a front setback from Vanderbilt Drive of 180 feet
Page 111
March 22-23, 2005
for the southern building, and over 200 feet for the northern building.
The side setback is 60 feet.
So you can see we set these buildings back well over 100 percent
of the building height, but the residential plan provides for 64 percent
open space.
The existing commercial zoning would allow setbacks as close as
25 feet to the road and 15 feet for the side setbacks, and the
commercial open space requirement is only 15 percent.
The benefits of the residential zoning is increased access to the
water and to the beach, additional county parking, and improved
egress to the traffic signal, and less intrusion into the residential
neighborhood, including significantly less traffic than the commercial
alternatives. I'll get into a little bit more detail.
In our previous petition we had agreed to address some perceived
issues from the community about the marina going away. Keep in
mind, the marina has always been private property. The public has
never had the right to use that property. Only those people leasing
from the marina had the right to use the property.
It was -- it was perceived that somehow we were taking the
public's access to the water away, and we wanted to address those
issues. And we agreed to contribute a million dollars towards the
construction of the Lely Barefoot Beach Preserve boardwalk.
If for some reason that project is not going forward with the
county or if for some reason you've already funded it, we're still
committed to providing a million dollars for the county to use for
beach access however the county sees fit to address the beach access
concern that was raised.
We also agreed to contribute a million dollars to public water
access, and we earmarked that money for the North Bay area because
they were concerned about people being able to boat in the water.
Again, only a limited number of people could actually use the marina.
This one-million-dollar contribution will greatly enhance the general
Page 112
March 22-23, 2005
county population's ability to actually get a boat in the water and use
the county's asset of the waterway.
And, finally, we agreed, as I've talked to you about it, was to
reconfigure the county's existing county parking together with
contributing some of our land to reconfigure at our expense the
county's parking to increase the amount of parking spaces in the area
by approximately 29 boat trailers and 21 car parking spaces.
So we have clearly addressed what we were told were the issues
from the area regarding public access to the beach and public access to
the water. This just shows you where the dock would be if the county
goes forward with that. And, again, the million-dollar contribution can
be used anywhere by the county. This is just one suggestion.
From a traffic standpoint, the neighbors were very concerned
about what would happen to their neighborhood if we were to develop
either of the three alternatives. The first alternative is the residential,
the second alternative would be the destination resort hotel, and the
third alternative is, if you deny both petitions, to develop a
commercial proj ect.
And in your staff report you've seen -- and these are the numbers.
You know, if we were to develop under the existing zoning today, a
retail shopping center, and it would be a high-end retail shopping
center. It would be something that attracts people. You know, it
would be like Venetian Village. We'd have to bring people there to
use these shops. So it would be an attractor that you can expect, you
know, 7,300 trips a day under the commercial alternative.
If we were to do a destination resort hotel, you can expect about
1,300 trips per day. The former marina had a little over 1,200 trips per
day. And by far, the least intrusive traffic-wise into the neighborhood
is the proposed residential PUD with 539 trips per day.
At this point I'm going to ask Mr. Nadeau to come up and briefly
talk to you from a professional planner's perspective about
compatibility and consistency with the compo plan, and then after that
Page 113
March 22-23,2005
we're going to have Ken Humiston come up and address some of the
EAC issues we have, and after that, we'll have Mr. Hall come up and
take you through in greater detail the architecture and site plan.
With that, I'll turn it over to -- where'd he go?
MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record,
my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for R W A. I've
been a professional planner in Collier County, both representing you
as well as the development community for the past about 18 years.
I'm pinch-hitting for Bob Mulhere who's out at the San Francisco
National Conference presenting our TDR program. And so while I'm
not completely familiar with the project, I have reviewed all of the
materials.
Staff has made a thorough exploration of the potential aspects,
positive and negative with this project. They made a finding of
compatibility based on the surrounding land uses as well as being
complimentary with the surrounding land uses. They also have found
that the public use portion of the petition is fairly significant related to
this development itself with the improvements identified by Mr.
Y ovanovich' s presentation.
The additional contributions are significant. The deviations that
were proposed in the PUD have been found to be consistent with the
land-use related hardships associated with the project, and they
support all the deviations suggested.
The comprehensive planning department has reviewed the
project and has found that it is consistent and compatible with the
comprehensive plan. You have also found that there's a sig --
reduction in traffic as a result of the proposed use.
Where you were seeing some peak hour trips -- excuse me.
Where you were seeing some average annual daily trips, our county
measures based on peak p.m. hour trips were substantially less than
the former marina and significantly less than the C-4 land uses.
Based on that, staff made the conclusion that the proposed 9.48
Page 114
March 22-23,2005
dwelling units per acre of the Coconilla PUD was compatible and
complementary with the surrounding lands.
You have on page six of your executive summary a very detailed
list of legal considerations, all of which were found to be appropriate
and have been satisfied by this petition.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we're going to hold those
questions until the end of the presentation.
MR. NADEAU: Oh, yes. I was advised that from a professional
planner's standpoint, we agree with all of the conditions and findings
made by staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. HUMISTON: Ken Humiston with Humiston and Moore
Engineers. As Rich Y ovanovich mentioned, there were a couple of
staff recommendations that went to the Environmental Advisory
Council to which we make exception, and I just wanted to take a few
minutes and go over those.
Those items were in the PUD rezone staff summary that was
given to the EAC, item number one, which dealt with a draft
restriction for vessels using the area, and item number four, which
dealt with an issue of planting of mangroves in the proposed boat
basin.
On the conditional use petition, those same two items were in
there respectively as items two and item one.
Taking up the issue first of the draft restriction. The staff
recommendation stated that draft restrictions will be in accordance
with the manatee protection plan in effect at the time of the site
development plan, construction plan submittal.
There is, in fact, no draft restriction in the manatee protection
plan. What the manatee protection plan says -- and I have this up here
on the screen. The highlighted part it says, the Army Corps of
Engineers designed the Wiggins Pass system for three-foot draft
Page 115
March 22-23, 2005
vessels, and current maintenance dredging permits are based on the
three- foot draft design.
I think that this does create a little bit of confusion because of the
discussion of the three-foot draft as part of the design, and what I
wanted to explain is that the three-foot draft is only one element of a
set of design criteria that was used by the Corps of Engineers to
determine what would be the most economical depth to which to
dredge the inlet. It was never intended as a draft restriction.
And to illustrate this, we've prepared this exhibit. Over on the
left-hand side is the exhibit that shows the set of Corps of Engineers
criteria. It illustrates a three-foot draft vessel at low tide with a
two- foot wave allowance. And I want to clarify that a two-foot wave
allowance means displacement of the boat hull two feet below the still
water level. So that does, in fact, correspond to a four-foot wave,
which is really a pretty severe condition for any boat to be navigating
through Wiggins Pass.
In fact, the Corps of Engineers' wave information study shows
that waves of a four-foot height or higher occur only approximately
two and a half percent of the time, which would be roughly eight days
per year.
If you consider as well that the low tide, which occurs in this area
either once or twice a day since we have a mixed tide, depends on the
time of the month and the phase of the moon, but if you assume you
have a low tide condition approximately two hours per day, this
extreme condition that the Corps of Engineers combined with a
three- foot draft to determine the economic depth of dredging really
only occurs about 16 hours per year.
The rest of the time, under better weather conditions or more
favorable tide conditions, there's actually plenty of water for vessels
with drafts greater than three feet to use the inlet, and they do. And
some of those conditions are indicated in the three right-hand panels,
all with the three-foot draft boat, you can see that at mean tide and
Page 116
March 22-23,2005
high tide, there's more than adequate depth for a three-foot draft or
more vessel in this area.
Just taking this a little bit further regarding the Corps of
Engineers -- this is actually out of their manual regarding the design of
small boat navigation projects. And it reiterates what I said before,
that the design vessel will provide the economic optimum project.
But specifically it says, however, larger vessels may use the
project. So that's a confirmation that the Corps of Engineers does, in
no way, intend their design vessel criteria to imply that it's a draft
restriction.
And I think to further illustrate that point, it goes on here to say
that under special conditions, such as infrequent one-way transit,
which would mean that the Corps of Engineers actually contemplates
the use of a waterway by vessels that are so large that only one of
those boats could navigate the channel at a time. In other words, there
would be one-way traffic to allow a very large vessel to navigate the
waterway.
Clearly we're not dealing with that kind of a situation here at
Wiggins Pass. This is the same exhibit you looked at before, except at
the bottom we just created a scale drawing that shows what is
approximately a five-foot draft vessel and a three-foot draft vessel
passing two-way traffic in the channel. And to my knowledge, there
are no vessels in that area with a draft as deep as five feet.
The second issue that I wanted to address was the issue of
mangroves, and the staff recommendation states that as part of the
biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
applicant proposed enhancing the reconfigured marina basin for
flushing by planting the terminal ends of the bay with .82 acres of
mangroves.
There are actually two problems with this statement. One is, it
implies that the Fish and Wildlife Service were requiring this planting
of mangroves, which is not the case. This mention of the mangroves
Page 11 7
March 22-23,2005
in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion, which really
dealt with the eagle issue, is in the part of the biological opinion on the
description of the proposed activity.
The mangroves were not required by the Fish and Wildlife
Service or the State of Florida or any regulatory agency. They were
really added as a landscaping feature by the applicant. And I'll
explain that a little bit more in a minute.
And the other item in this statement, which I think needs
clarification, is that it states that the mangroves were in the basin for
flushing purposes, which is not correct. In fact, if you have water
flowing through an area and you introduce vegetation, the vegetation
roots would simply create friction and actually interfere with the
flushing rather than enhance it.
To explain how the mangrove planting became part of this, we
prepared this illustration, which shows three different boat basins, boat
basin of three different dimensions. I want to call your attention to the
top area, which in the top left of this, you can see a basin that -- this is
the schematic. It's not scaled to represent the actual basin on the
project.
But what this illustrates is that you get a certain amount of
circulation of water into and out of the basin that's induced by flow
past the entrance to the basin. In the upper right-hand portion it
illustrates the other means by which water flows in and out of the
basin, which is tidal exchange.
The upper right, there are two lines that represent the high tide
line and the low tide line, and the difference between those two is the
volume of water that goes in and out of the basin on a given tidal
exchange. So there are two mechanisms by which we get water
flowing in and out of the basin.
The state requires, for water quality purposes, that that water
exchange reach 90 percent within 96 hours, a period of four days.
The other two exhibits that are in the middle and the bottom of
Page 118
March 22-23, 2005
this illustrates that as the length dimension of the basin increases, you
have basically a long dead-end situation. And clearly on the left-hand
side, the flow-induced circulation is not going to be effective in the far
dead-end reach of the basin.
And although on the right-hand side, the tidal exchange would
really be the same because the tidal range is going to be the same
throughout the basin, it may not be quite as effective in the dead-end
part of the basin either.
So to meet the state water quality standards, we came up with a --
kind of an innovative design wherein the far reach of the basin we
created a shelf, which essentially is an intertidal flap. In other words,
at low tide it would be dry, but it would fill with water at high tide
creating essentially a volume of water that flows completely through
the basin on every tidal exchange.
And by doing this, we were able to achieve the state requirements
for water quality. And because we have this tidal flat area which is
similar to other tidal flats in the area that you would see going from
the project site out to Wiggins Pass, we took the opportunity to plant
some mangroves in that area more as an aesthetic enhancement rather
than as an environmental measure. So it was not required by any of
the agencies as mitigation or for any other reason.
And the PUD rezone petition that's before you today has a much
smaller basin than the original design. It's a small basin with rounded
features that flushes adequately without any kind of an enhancement
like this, so the requirement of mangroves on that proj ect is simply not
appropriate.
The conditional use petition has a larger basin. That has not been
thoroughly evaluated for the flushing properties, and it may be that
some treatment like this will be required once we get into that process
with DEP. But it is the DEP review process for water quality where
that would be determined.
So in summary, I would just like to say that the -- we don't feel
Page 119
March 22-23, 2005
that the draft restriction should be an appropriate part of this. Right
now there is no restriction to any member of the public using Wiggins
Pass, or for that matter, any federal navigation inlet or any other inlet
that I know of. And the mangrove planting issue is simply not
relevant to the two proj ects that are before you today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. HALL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Robert Hall. I'm with the firm of Curts, Gaines, Hall,
J ones Architects in Tampa.
We've been fortunate to -- I've been designing very high-end
residential projects in Collier County, myself in particular, for over the
last 25 years.
For the last 18 of those years we've enjoyed a great relationship
with Eco Group and designed many of the projects you all, I know,
are familiar with. Pelican Isle, Barefoot Beach Club, Sancerre, just to
name a few.
In that period of time we've learned a lot. We've learned a lot in
this project. We've been doing this one for two years now. We've
come a long way. We've talked to a lot of people in the community.
It's the second time meeting with you folks. And I think we're pleased
today to present a project to you that we think is extremely
compatible.
You've heard all of the zoning and comprehensive plan issues
that address that, and I'd just like to kind of take you through the
architecture to maybe explain it in a little more detail.
Okay. I think you have the site plan on the screen and a
rendering to the left of the site plan on the board.
As Rich had indicated, this is two 10-story buildings. We have
one that's six units per floor to the north and one that is four units per
floor to the south. They're 10 stories over parking, for a total of95
units.
The entry to the project has been carefully positioned to align
Page 120
March 22-23, 2005
with Wiggins Pass Road to the southern end of the property. This not
only provides for egress from the county park, which is an incredible
benefit to the park where right now egress out of the park is difficult
with boats and trailers, and it also provides for a controlled entry and
exit and a secluded gatehouse for the residential development.
Surrounding the project is heavy, lush landscaping, fountains,
pools, a curved marina basin and a promenade, cascading water
features, and all of these combine together to buffer the project from
all sides. They virtually conceal the enclosed garage and provide for
softly elegant grounds.
Careful planning and design by the entire team has led to
employing large setbacks from Vanderbilt Drive. Under normal kind
of conditions, we could have had as little as probably 100 feet from
Vanderbilt Road ( sic).
The closest point of the southern building is 180 feet from
Vanderbilt Road. The closest point of the northern building is 200
feet from Vanderbilt Drive.
The northern point of the farthest building is 360 feet from
Vanderbilt Drive. This, combined with the heights that we're
indicating, the landscaping that we're indicating, do a tremendous
amount to buffer this proj ect from the street and all surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
Some other features of the project that we think are important,
the curbed marina basin and promenade and tiered plaza provide a
dramatic water's edge in a supple and undulating manner following the
lead of the architecture of the buildings.
This architecture makes the most of its beautiful site with forms,
in our opinion, that give a unique character to the project both in plan
and elevation. It takes on a sophisticated nautical theme in ways that
evoke Old Florida and embrace the boating lifestyle that it anchors.
Very important issues, the two essential issues in my view of this
project, when you take all the other stuff out, really is an issue of
Page 121
_._,..____...,. ^".r -_...".~_."....,-.~
March 22-23, 2005
height and use. The project as designed is 120 feet tall by zoning. It
makes it one of the lowest projects in the area. It also is a residential
use; completely compatible with all of its neighbors.
And I don't think -- in my 30-year career I don't think I've ever
been involved in a project that is more compatible. And we'll be
happy to address questions later.
Rich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wanted to mention two other public
features to the project that I forgot to mention early on. We also are
providing a public fueling station and we are also providing a public
ship store to enhance the public's ability to utilize the water. I forgot
to mention those earlier on when I talked about the proj ect.
With that, Mr. Chairman, if it's okay, we'll move into the
description of the conditional use project, and then we'll be done and
you can go ahead and open up to public comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope the next presentation will be
briefer than this one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The site plan and the
architectural features that are shown, I have no idea if that fits our land
development code. I don't think that we can -- should consider the site
plan or the architectural --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the site plan shows you the
development standards that are within our PUD, so this will be part of
your land development code. So the site development plan does, in
fact, give you the picture of what -- how the site will actually be
developed based upon the development standards within the PUD
document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess if there's a motion,
it would have to conform to our land development code, since this is
Page 122
March 22-23, 2005
being presented.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which one are you talking about, the one
that's been presented right now or the one he's getting ready to
present?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, both of them. Well, I
mean, the site plan. I don't know what he's going to present on the
conditional use, personally.
But I guess if there's a motion, that I'll ask that it conform to the
land development code, that's all.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think -- I think the -- excuse
me. I think the bottom line here is, we've got to make a determination
whether we're going to rezone this residential or leave it as
commercial, and I don't think we need to get involved in whether it
meets the criteria of a site development plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Why don't you continue, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, thank you.
The second proposal is a conditional use for a destination resort
hotel. I'll quickly take you through that.
And we need to be clear and up front that we are requesting a
destination resort hotel. Weare not interested in a regular hotel. And
the reason we're not interested in a regular hotel is if we're determined
to be a regular hotel, we would have 140 rooms. And if we're a
destination resort hotel, we'd have 230 rooms.
We can't make a go of it with 140 rooms. We started this process
in July of last year in meeting with staff and identifying exactly what
we propose to do, and we were told at that time that we met the
qualifications to be destination resort hotel, and that's why we went
through a conditional use application process versus going through a
PUD process for the type of hotel we wanted to construct.
On the screen is the architecture for the destination resort hotel.
Page 123
March 22-23, 2005
That again -- there is the site plan. That is a requirement,
Commissioner Henning. In order for the conditional use, you need to
have the site plan as part of that approval.
I just want to quickly go through what we're required to provide.
As I said, we're going to do 230 rooms, we're going to have a
restaurant, we're going to have a bar/lounge, which is required, we're
going to have a meeting place, a spa and retail shops, a marina with 47
slips.
And the question I've got to ask the Board of County
Commissioners, because there's the issue that we all now know about
that was brought to our attention the afternoon before the Planning
Commission, do we or do we not meet the requirements for a
destination resort hotel?
Your staff report, which we don't agree with, seems to indicate
that we would be required to have an on-site golf course. We're
willing to provide an on-site golf course. The question to you is, what
does the LDC say is a golf course?
And I will tell you -- and you don't have to take my word for it --
the LDC doesn't tell you what a golf course is. We have asked the
very simple question, if we are to add a miniature golf course to this
project -- and people are sniggering. That's how ridiculous the
requirement is.
But I believe, and we are going to be asking for confirmation
from the Board of County Commissioners, that if we provide a
miniature golf course, do we meet the definition of destination resort
hotel? Because if we do, then we will provide it. If we don't, then
obviously there's no sense in providing it.
Right now the definition of a destination resort hotel allows for a
floor area ratio of .8. We're providing a floor area ratio of .79. The
LDC requires a minimum 25 percent of the building be devoted to
common usage, support services, like I was telling you about, the spa,
the restaurant, things like that.
Page 124
March 22-23, 2005
We've provided 35 -- over 35 percent to those uses. The open
space requirement is 15 percent. We're providing 35 percent open
space.
The implications -- and I'll quickly go through these -- is we
believe that a commercial utilization of the property is a poor
utilization of this property. It's only got 90 feet of water frontage. We
believe that a hotel is a much better use for the property than a
Venetian Village type project.
There's a significant increase in traffic, and we talked about that
briefly in the last presentation if we do commercial versus a hotel.
And the commercial zoning right now would not allow any public
input into the process. If we're denied this, we just go through a
standard site development plan, and as long as we are consistent with
the land development code, we get approved.
This allows the community to have a voice. The community,
again, at our neighborhood information meeting, I think, liked the
hotel. They didn't want it versus the residential, but they liked the
hotel.
They know it's going to be a three or four star hotel. It's being
designed by Hill Glazier, who's the architect for the Hyatt on Coconut
Road, they do Ritz-Carltons, they do Four Seasons. So it's being
designed by a quality developer. It will also have the public fueling
station and the public ship store.
We will provided some transient boat slips for sightseeing vessels
and fishing vessels. Obviously, the rooms and the restaurant and
lounge will all be open to the public, as will the spa and finance
center.
Traffic, as we talked about, is greatly reduced for the destination
resort hotel versus the C-4 zoning that exists today.
The environmental. Clearly a reduction from 450 boats to 47
boats is much better for the manatee. On both plans we have an
innovative Bald Eagle management plan to where we even agree toi
Page 125
March 22-23, 2005
have a camera focused on the eagle during construction to make sure
that if anything happens with the eagle during construction, we can
shut down the construction until we can address those issues.
Likewise, it also protects us from people alleging that we're
doing something that's somehow hindering -- affecting the eagle.
We'll now have a video of that to make sure that if we are, it will be
verified. If we're not, it will also be verified.
And we committed at the EAC to clean up the environmental --
the pollutants, basically, on the site to the residential standard versus
the commercial on the project.
There will be some interconnection between our property and the
park so there will still be the egress issues if we do the commercial --
if we do the -- I'm sorry -- if we do the destination resort hotel.
Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow, Mr. Humiston basically gave his
summary on the draft restriction issues and the flushing issues, and
we'll just carry that forward to this presentation and just move forward
with those slides.
Weare proposing much better setbacks of at least 110 feet from
the roadway for the principal structure and 52 feet for the side
setbacks. Again, we can go as low as 25 feet from the road and 15 feet
from the side. And we provide twice as much open space in the hotel
plan versus what will be allowed under the C-4 zoning.
With that, that's a summary of the commercial conditional use.
At this point, obviously up to the chair, if you want to ask questions of
us now, we can answer them or you can allow the public -- public
comment. I'm sorry. I guess staff would go after us.
If you want to ask questions of us now or go to your staff, it's up
to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we'll let the commissioners ask
you questions, and then we'll hear staff presentation, and then we'll
ask them questions.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 126
March 22-23,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as the residential, how
does this differ from the original petition from last year?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it's a significant reduction in
height. As you recall, the previous plan called for a stair-stepped
building. I think it was 15 over parking, 17, and ultimately 21. This is
a reduction in height significantly to basically make it the same as the
Pelican Isle Yacht Club project, so that's the primary difference.
We've included actually -- and we're also conveying some land to
the county public use versus previously we were just giving you an
easement. We're actually conveying land so that the configuration of
the parking lot, you'll own it versus our owning the property.
So those are the major differences between the previous submittal
and today's submittal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the ship store was still in
the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- mix on both of them? Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've just got one question.
I'm confused. You're saying that the marina that was there originally
__ and I just want to need -- I just need a clarification, because you
said that it was private, so that meant that nobody could get on that
property; is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You were -- the property has always been
private property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Unless you were -- unless you were
leasing space to store your boat there, you didn't have the right to take
your boat and launch your boat there. It was private from that
standpoint.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was reading in the agenda
Page 127
March 22-23, 2005
here and it says -- and I'm quoting from what I read here. The existing
facility is a commercial marina and boat yard with approximately 450
dry storage slips, vehicle parking for owners of boats in storage,
approximately 52 wet slips primarily used for transit and mooring of
rental boats, fuel facility, ship store and so on.
So it was basically open for the public because they could go
there and rent a boat, or they could come in and transit.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. But you didn't have the right as an
individual citizen without paying the appropriate fees to use the
waterway, and that's the point I was trying to make.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You did not have the right to use private
property .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'm just trying to make it
clear --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- clarified point here. As a citizen,
I could either walk on that property, I could ride on that property with
my car, or I could even ride on it with my bike, I could go to the ship
store through the front gate, no -- at no hindrance whatsoever, and I
could purchase bait, I could purchase a fishing license, I could
purchase a tire and the whole nine yards, but I had access off the street
without being stopped or questioned or anything else.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, Commissioner, under our scenario
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Am I true -- is that right or not?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, the property owner
allowed you to come on and do those activities. It was the private
property owner's property. He allowed you to do that, and we will
allow you to do the same things, to come onto our property --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. If I want to rent a boat there
Page 128
March 22-23, 2005
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're not going to have -- we're not
having rental boats. This is a different -- and you know what,
Commissioner, right now, under the existing C-4 zoning, you've got
no guarantee that you're going to ever have -- enjoy the privileges that
you believe you had under the old scenario. Under today's rules, you
don't have any right to come on that property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's -- you're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just one question, please.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might be misunderstanding, but I
had thought that there was going to be public boat slips and a launch
there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Am I getting confused on the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the residential?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, Commissioner. On the residential
we were talking about a public fueling which is open to the public,
public ship store open to the public. The slips that we have would go
with the residential development.
We would make available on our property additional parking
spaces for boat trailer parking and regular parking. So no, none of the
slips are open, but they provide a better access to the county's boat
launch right next door. We're increasing the general public's access to
the county's boat launch.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Boy, I'm sorry. I had a big
misunderstanding. Is there some -- is there public -- are there public
boat slips -- excuse my English -- with the hotel?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. With the hotel we were talking
about a number of transient slips that would allow people that were
coming to the restaurant to use the restaurant. Also we were going to
Page 129
March 22-23, 2005
have some public sightseeing and fishing, boats that could also use
that. And if there weren't boats parked at the slips, people can use
those slips as well.
So under the hotel yes, there's ability for people to bring their
boats there, not own a slip, but bring their boat there while they're
using the public facilities.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we had before, we had 52
transient slips when the marina was open, and what we're going to get
here probably is about 29 trailer spots, additional spots; is that about
right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no, I don't think that's about right at
all. I mean, you're forgetting the contribution to the -- million-dollar
contribution to buy additional boat parking --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, is that on the table with the
hotel, too?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, it's not? Just on the
residential?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No further questions by
commissioners? We'll have the staffs presentation then.
MR. BOSI: Afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Bosi,
Zoning/Land Development Review. I'll try to keep it short because I
know there is a stack of public speakers.
And I've -- hopefully I provided a great detail within the EAC
staff report, staff reports, and executive summaries that have been
provided with the agenda packet.
I'll start off with the residential proposal. The residential
proposal has been evaluated based upon the land development code,
the growth management plan, and the traditional manners in how we
Page 130
March 22-23,2005
deal with planned unit developments, and they've been found to be
inconsistent with all three of those areas.
Commissioner Henning, you are correct. These site plans are
only conceptual, and they shouldn't be utilized, by any means, to
designate an actual site plan. It is -- it is supposed to be just
conceptual, and they are just conceptual. They are based upon the
development standards that have been evaluated, but they are
conceptual in nature.
When we arrived at the conclusions for this -- for the residential
petition, the compatibility was well addressed by the applicant in
terms of the building height, the surrounding structures in the area. It
is compatible, but the area that gave the greatest pause to staff was the
evaluation of two conflicting policies within the growth management
plan.
And it was contained in the staff report and the issues that came
before you last year. Staff -- I tried to and the remaining staff tried to
voice a consistent voice mirroring what we did last year. And what
we tried to do was strike a balance between two conflicting provisions,
one being the coastal high hazard area, the other being the density
bonus for commercial conversion.
What we arrived upon is probably what makes no side happy,
and that's the middle grounds. We split the difference between the
two proposals, giving them equal weight, not trying to make a policy
decision at the staff level, but just trying to -- to give credence to both
-- to both policies.
We arrived upon the 9.5 units per acre as a recommended
density. That's what was recommended a year ago. That's what staff
consistently stayed with.
And in this petition -- I would like to remind the board that that is
just staff recommendation. And as you know, and as it's been well
versed and well discussed, the conversion of commercial density is not
an entitlement, it's an evaluation. And within -- within the
Page 131
.._.....__._u_.,~,..__,,_.,.~"'>o"'..._"_._._.-.._~"_. .._......._"..",....... ~._....._._.,~".".".__^,._..~~"m,~_"._~_...._..____..,.~.-".,.."._,.,
March 22-23, 2005
presentations and all the materials that are presented, the actual
density that's granted is within your purview to do so, whether it's
within staff recommendation or is for some other number.
With that, there were three deviations contained within the
residential project. The -- two of the deviations dealt with landscape
issues. They really dealt with where -- the marina basin to the west of
the project. Staff felt that the deviations that are being requested from
the landscape buffers were appropriate, seeing that -- no development
contained within those areas.
And the third deviation dealt with sidewalks along -- sidewalks
along the southern portion of where the public use property is being
donated, instead of having sidewalks on both sides. We recognize that
because 30 feet of that northern -- or the southern portion is going to
be granted to the Cocohatchee River Park, that we agreed to sidewalks
on one side of the street.
With that, I'm going to move over to the conditional use. The
conditional use as well as the residential development was found
consistent and in compliance with the land development code and the
growth management plan.
The basis of where we were working from, and especially in
terms of impacts -- and as you know, the most impactful in terms of
our infrastructure, traditionally what's most felt by the general public,
is traffic.
And the basis lines of what we're working for was from the C-4
zoning. And as you have seen within the -- within the applicant's
proposal, that there is a potential for a high level of traffic impact, the
conditional use was roughly about 80 more trips per day than what the
former marina was impacting the systems.
And transportation staff had reviewed that and felt that it met the
growth management plans, it met with the policies of 5.4 and 5.1 and
was consistent in that manner.
The major issue with the conditional use that happened at the--
Page 132
March 22-23, 2005
happened at the Planning Commission dealt with the issue of floor
area ratio. The original staff report was generated by myself, and the
original interpretation request that was associated that was submitted
by Mr. Y ovanovich in terms of his clients for the Wiggins Pass
Marina property in July was also generated by myself.
And unfortunately a false assumption by my part generated some
confusion that was not cleared up until the week of the Planning
Commission. What I put up on the visualizer screen and -- it's
probably going to be a little bit difficult for you to read -- is the land
development code of a destination resort hotel. And if the commission
will allow me, I'll just read that briefly.
A destination resort hotel, a transient lodging facility where
patrons generally stay for several days in order to utilize, enjoy, or
otherwise participate in certain amenities, natural or man-made,
including but not limited to, direct access to the Gulf of Mexico,
on-site golf course and golf-related facilities, health spa and/or fitness
center, other recreational amenities and on-sites services, including
full dining services and a cocktail lounge, entertaining room for video
and movies, and concierge services.
Except that for destination resort hotels fronting on the Gulf of
Mexico, an on-site golf course is required.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is not.
MR. BOSI: Is not required, excuse me. In all cases, a
destination resort hotel must include full services. Dining services and
a cocktail lounge and not less than 25 percent of gross floor area must
be devoted to common usage and support service areas, such as, but
not limited to, fitness room, health spa, media room, meeting rooms,
dining rooms, lounge facilities and spaces services.
The interpretation that they had submitted which mirrored the
conditions of the conditional use application contained all of these
provisions in my mind. What I did not focus upon and what was the
key point of the interpretation that refuted the argument that it was,
Page 133
March 22-23, 2005
indeed, a destination resort hotel was the on-site golf course
requirement.
The interpretation letter did not specifically address fronting the
Gulf of Mexico. It was -- it was the zoning and land development
review director's determination that because the site sat on Wiggins
Pass and not the Gulf of Mexico, that it did not meet the strict
interpretation of the land development code.
Now, as Mr. Yovanovich has stated, if the conditions that were
contained within this -- their application changed, they may be able to
meet that definitional requirement. But as it's presented, as the
application was presented, it does not meet the strict definitional
requirement of a land development code, and that's why there is --
there's conflict -- if you read the staff report and you read the
executive summary, there's a conflict between the two.
And if the -- if this issue of the destination resort hotel is not
remedied by a change in the site conditions of the conditional use
application, staff would suggest an additional -- an additional
condition on top of the recommended conditional approvals, and that
is item number two, and it states .6 floor area ratio utilized for a
traditional hotel shall be mandated of the project at the time of site
development plan unless determined otherwise by the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
And what that states is, unless the conditions change, unless a
golf course is added to this site, we're not going to be able to review
this as a destination resort hotel when it comes in as a site
development plan unless the applicant would appeal the official
interpretation issued by the zoning director and the Board of Zoning
Appeals felt that the term fronting was satisfied by being on Wiggins
Pass.
And it was not strictly related to only the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Wiggins Pass was construed as part of the Gulf of Mexico.
That was -- that's the issue that staffhas had to deal with in the
Page 134
-'","""",..".,,"''''''''-'_.,.,,~- -,-~-~,-"---'-'-"-""-"'-""'- ,,---,....,,_._-- -"."...'--,--' ~",..,;_.
-----,._.-."-_..,~_._.,._.__...-.....,_._--
March 22-23, 2005
terms of the continual use, and I'll open myself and everyone else
from staff up to questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That completes staff presentation, right?
MR. BOSI: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any
questions?
Commissioners Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You didn't mention, but there's
like a dock jutting out there. I guess that must have been from the old
place or something, which I think would make it more difficult being
that the only public boating access is next door, Cocohatchee. That
dock seems to be jutting way out there.
Is there a way to shorten that dock or whatever so that the public
boating access in Cocohatchee has better access to the Gulf?
MR. BOSI: That could always be a recommendation of the
Board of County Commissioners. I'm not sure how that -- it would be
the dock on the southwest portion of the development site. I'm not
sure how that interferes or prevents the public access from utilizing
the Cocohatchee River Park, but it's always at the board's discretion.
If you felt that it did, indeed, present a hinderance to the public's use
of Cocohatchee River Park, then you could mandate -- you could
mandate a recomm -- modifications to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess this is a legal question
about the growth management plan. I'm sure the other commissioners
have received the same correspondence that I have about density
within the coastal high hazard, and is this project within the coastal
high hazard?
I already know that conversion of nonconforming commercial, an
application (sic) can apply for density bonuses. I don't think that's the
question. I think the question is, is this particular project within the
coastal high hazard area?
Page 135
.._."'-,,._......"-'.."~ ._..,-,,-_..._,,-,_.,--~----'
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All but .84 acres is in the coastal high
hazard area, I believe.
MR. BOSI: It was -- over 85 percent has been determined by
staff __ 85 percent of the project has been determined to be in the
coastal high hazard area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it definitely says, and I read
where it's no greater than four units per acre in a coastal high hazard
area.
MR. BOSI: The text of the coastal high hazard area placed a
limitation of four units per acre. I may want to defer to Mr. Weeks, in
comprehensive planning, who has a little bit more expertise in this
area who may be able to adequately address it.
But what my understanding is, it doesn't prohibit the utilization
of the conversion to commercial to be applied within the coastal high
hazard area. Any further --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Mr. Weeks is the expert
in the county as far as the growth management plan. I would
definitely like to hear from him.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, I'm David Weeks, planning
manager in the comprehensive planning department.
Commissioners, I've placed on the visualizer two different
policies from our growth management plan that are directed as point
of what is the allowable density.
The first policy in the conservation and coastal management
element, which I've partially placed in bold and italicized print so it
will stand out, it -- so you could see for yourself that the language says
that the future land use element limits density to four units per acre. It
is not the policy itself within the conservation and coastal
management element that is saying density is limited to four units per
acre.
The conservation and coastal management element is telling us
what the future land use element says, but it's saying it incorrectly.
Page 136
March 22-23, 2005
Also on this page you will see that the -- move it up, Jim.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. WEEKS: -- the capital improvement -- oh, I've got it
backwards. That first one was a capital improvement element. It's
almost identical language. The only difference is that the capital
improvement element says that the future land use element limits
density within a coastal high hazard -- within a portion of the coastal
high hazard area to four units per acre.
And I'm telling you that in both cases those elements are
incorrectly telling you what the future land use element says. The
capital improvement element is closer because it says a portion is
limited to four units per acre, and a portion of the coastal high hazard
area, that being the portion that lies south of U.S. 41, is further
restricted as to what is the density allowed there by the future land use
element.
Density in that portion of the coastal high hazard area below U.S.
41 is limited to four units per acre with only one exception, and that's
the affordable housing density bonus.
In the remaining portion of the coastal high hazard area, which is
all north of 41 -- some of it goes as far over as around Airport Road,
but most of it is along U.S. 41 and to the west of that, other density
bonuses do apply, including the one that's under discussion today, the
conversion of commercial.
As has already been mentioned earlier in the presentation, these
density bonuses, and you're aware of this, they're not entitlements. So
what I'm here to tell you is that staffs position is and always has been
that the density allowed in the coastal high hazard area in this
particular area would be up to 16 units per acre because in this case
this conversion of commercial zoning bonus is applicable.
The decision before you, as always, is what density should you
approve. Should you approve 16? Should you approve nothing?
Should you approve something in between? It is your discretion as to
Page 137
March 22-23, 2005
what density should be allowed.
You can consider, obviously, compatibility with surrounding
properties, public facilities impacts, evacuation concerns, if there are
any. I mean, these are the types of considerations, your standard
rezone findings. But as to the issue of what density does the future
land use element allow, staffs response is 16 units per acre, as a
maximum, but that is what is allowed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To continue on, in the future
land use map it outlines the coastal high hazard area by hash marks?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it goes -- I mean, it's just all
over within the urban area, and I would imagine it has to do with
FEMA flooding.
The -- the point that you made about affordable housing density
bonuses, 16 units per acre within the coastal high hazard area, the
board is changing that. We're actually removing that part of the whole
discussion, and you know, I just want to be safe with the citizens that
seek affordable housing.
The last question is -- and there's so many opinions out there
about our growth management plan. I just want to ask you, how long
you been working with the Collier County growth management plan?
MR. WEEKS: Specifically with the plan, I'd say about 15 years.
I've been with the county over 19.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me, since that's a
coastal high hazard area, what is the flood zone designation for that
particular area?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. I'm sorry, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You don't know?
Page 138
March 22-23, 2005
MR. WEEKS: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that's a cat. one, that's
supposed to be evacuated?
MR. WEEKS: Oh, yes, sir, I'm sorry. I misunderstood the
question. It is category one storm surge zone.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So category one, we should get
people out of there; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS: During certain storm events, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Why would we want to
encourage more density if we have to leave that area in case of
evacuation?
MR. WEEKS: That's the policy decision for you to make,
Commissioners. Is there a concern for increasing the density in this
particular location in the coastal high hazard area? The evacuation __
and there's an expert here from your emergency management bureau--
but the question is, if you were to allow this density to be approved, to
place additional residential units ultimately some population in the
coastal high hazard area, are you endangering their lives? Are you
putting these people at risk by allowing them to live there?
And I think there's two issues that would be addressed related to
that. Number one is, what would be the occupancy of those units
during the storm season? Typically it's not very high, but certainly
some people might be living there.
Secondly then, what is the evacuation concern? Does the county
have the ability to evacuate the people? These people -- because that's
what we're talking about, just these people -- from that zone.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have any idea of how many
PUDs have been approved since 1990 in that coastal high hazard area
all along the coast of District 2?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. In response to your request the other
day, we determined that there were six residential PUDs approved
within that area.
Page 139
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And do we know offhand, of all the
PUDs that have been approved there, can you tell me roughly how
many units have been approved for that area from Seagate to the
northern end and west of 41 ?
Maybe I can help you a little bit.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I come up with a count of about
11,938 units, and that's including Pelican Bay and all along that area.
That's not including the units that have not been built.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. I would agree with that. That's not just
in those --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that right now we have
in that area already approved to be built pretty close to 1,163 more
units in a coastal high hazard area.
MR. WEEKS: Two responses, Commissioner. Make sure we're
clear that that was -- actually it's 11,000 and something. It's almost
12,000 built residential units west of 41, north of Seagate Drive.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 11,938.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. That's not just the eight -- excuse me--
not just the six residential units we were discussing earlier, residential
projects. That's the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. WEEKS: -- total ofPUDs only.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that's about 20 -- and if
we just say there's two residents per unit on those, we're looking at
almost 24,000 people --
MR. WEEKS: That's an assumption I would not agree with, but
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two people per occupancy?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. I say that because the occupancy
rates in the coastal area of the county are much less than along the
interior. The both -- both the number of persons per household, those
Page 140
March 22-23, 2005
persons actually living there as permanent residents tends to be lower
in the coastal area than further inland, and, secondly, the number of
residences that are permanently occupied tends to be much less.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you give me a percentage of
that that wouldn't be occupied during an area -- during a time?
Because there's an awful lot of single-family homes not counting--
we're not even talking about Naples Park yet, we're not even talking
about Vanderbilt Beach yet, we're not talking about the other units that
are up north, like Eden on the Bay, there's people that live there all
year-round. Then, of course, we've got all these people there at
Bentley Village that are mostly all year-round people, and those are
elderly people. We haven't even considered that yet.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we stipulate that Commissioner
Halas has concerns about the evacuation of this area? And I want to
resolve that issue. I don't want to have an argument between the staff
and the commissioner, but, yeah, Commissioner Halas clearly has a
concern about that, and I think we need to address it and get it
resolved.
Is -- where's Dan Summers?
MR. WEEKS: Jim Von Rinteln was here earlier. Yeah, here he
IS.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can you address this issue for
Commissioner Halas?
MR. von RINTELN: Jim von Rinteln from the Emergency
Management Department, for the record.
Of course we have concerns in the county about evacuation and
sheltering. I mean, that would apply to this area. Whether there's
anything special -- you know, it is actually a tropical storm evacuation
zone, so it would have to evacuate that area under, you know, more
opportunities than others.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What was your recommendation on this
Page 141
March 22-23, 2005
issue when it was reviewed by staff?
MR. von RINTELN: As I recall, Dan Summers didn't have any
particular issue with this, but we have the, of course, general concern
of evacuation and sheltering for the community, and adding density,
of course, adds shelter population in evacuation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how does that compare with a
hotel?
MR. von RINTELN: In regard to?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Evacuation issues.
MR. von RINTELN : Well, hotels would also add in a similar __
a similar way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, if you don't mind, let me
get one other issue out of the way here because it was asked earlier,
and someone was asking -- a commissioner was asking for a legal
interpretation.
And, David, we didn't get to you. But I want to make sure that
you concur with the position that the Board of County Commissioners
has the right under the growth management plan to grant a density
bonus in the coastal high hazard area.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. For the record, I do concur. And as stated
in the executive summary and on the record here today, there is no
entitlement to any granting of density at all, but there is a range within
which density may be considered and granted or not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And then Commissioner Halas,
are you finished or would you like to __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to ask one more
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let him condition his thought process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many shelters do we have in
District 2 to take care of the people in case we had to evacuate? Do
you have a diagram or anything to show us?
MR. von RINTELN: I believe I have that information. Off the
Page 142
March 22-23, 2005
top of my head, it's four shelters, but as always, we must caveat that,
that we don't always open every shelter. They're very
storm-dependent. Two of the shelters depicted there are of old design
and of -- they're relatively close to the shore. So generally we open
the Barron Collier High School, which is on the edge of the district,
and in the past we've opened the Pine Ridge Middle School.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's the capacity of each of
these?
MR. von RINTELN: The total capacity as depicted there is
approximately, as I recall, 4,500, in the neighborhood. But as I stated,
each storm is different. That would be a maximum. That might be a
tropical storm situation. As the storm increases in strength, you lose
capacity .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In other words, we can't open a
couple of those facilities is what you're saying; is that correct?
MR. von RINTELN: In a Charley type situation, or Hurricane
Charley as an example, we would have opened Barron Collier and the
North Naples Middle School.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. More questions on
hurricane, hurricane evacuation. The hurricane season, the prime
hurricane season runs from what to what?
MR. von RINTELN: One June until 30 November.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: During that period of time, if
there is -- how many people, how many residents would there be, we
determined? What'd you say, the number?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's -- of the -- of the PUDs,
of the PUDs is 23,000, but that doesn't entail all of the single-family
residents that are in District 2 such as Naples Park, Bentley Village,
and all the other units.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Well, my question
Page 143
March 22-23, 2005
would be, during that time, hurricane season, it's been my experience
at least that a number of people move out of the area not because of
the hurricane season. Generally it's the seasonal residents that live in
these particular dwellings.
What would we estimate the population would be that would be
in need of hurricane evacuation so we're working with numbers that
we understand?
MR. von RINTELN: I don't know if I'm exactly the person to __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who would that be?
MR. von RINTELN: -- pull up those numbers. David Weeks
may have those if he's still here. But it's considerably less. We
obviously have a seasonal peak population that we're experiencing
right now. And then in the -- you know, the summer months, it's, I
think, around 90,000 less or 100,000 less, so -- and that's county-wide.
So certainly there are less people here during the summer months and,
therefore, less to evacuate, but -_
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I take it that
something of this nature here that we're talking about would probably
be the same as other seasonal residents that have that __
MR. von RINTELN: Proportionately. I would expect that
similarly there's a less population to evacuate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And so the opinion of
Dan Summers is, is that at this point he doesn't see a major problem?
Or how did he word it? Let's get it down to a basic fact. What did
Dan Summers actually say?
MR. von RINTELN: I don't believe __
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've got it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's right there in the
executive summary.
MR. von RINTELN: I think I can speak for Dan in saying that
the evacuation and sheltering issue for the county is of a concern to us
and it always is. Does this particular development cause that to be a
Page 144
March 22-23, 2005
crisis, no, I don't -- I think that __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The next person I'd like to ask
questions of, if I may, is Norm Feder.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But don't leave.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. I'll just be just a few
minutes. But what I'm trying to do is actually assess the actual
situation that's going to prevail from this. And Norm's getting
counseled at the moment, and here he comes.
MR. MUDD: As Norm is coming to the microphone -- Jim
Mudd, County Manager, for the record -- I want to make sure we
didn't give somebody a false impression that if you live in a certain
particular district of a commissioner that you only get to use the
shelters in that particular commissioner's district.
There would be shelters all over Collier County that would light
up in District 3, District 5, District 1, that anybody in Collier County
could use. Depending on the situation of the storm and the severity,
they could move from place to place.
And some of those particular ones on the slide in front of you
might be shut down, but Golden Gate Community Center or one of the
elementary schools or high schools further inland would be opened up
in order to compensate for that particular case.
So I just want to make sure we didn't give somebody that
impression that they're basically rationed by the amount of shelters in
a particular district just for those particular citizens. There's a lot more
shelters than just what exist in anyone district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Mr. Feder?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feders (sic), you can see
what the direction is of the conversation as far as what we can do for
our citizens in the time a hurricane, a pending hurricane and due
notice is given. What do you see as far as the ability to be able to
evacuate that area with the road situation?
MR. FEDER: Okay. For the record, Norman Feder,
Page 145
March 22-23, 2005
Transportation Administrator.
This coming season's going to be difficult because we have a lot
of construction going, and that's why we tried to set up a relief route
between Immokalee and Vanderbilt the way we structured the
schedule.
But in the broader picture and answer, essentially you can't build
your way out of evacuation. You need to look at shelters and refuges.
I think that's been proven time and time again here in Florida that
there's no way of building sufficient lanes to promote evacuation.
Obviously you try to address that. We've got reversible lane
plans on the interstate, other issues to try and respond, because there
will be some level of evacuation. But evacuation to where? So the
critical component is shelters and refuges, and I don't believe that we
have sufficient here in this county at this time, although we're working
on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. Your answer was
pretty long, but I didn't quite pick it up.
MR. FEDER: Then please ask your question again and make
sure I answer your question, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Based upon the road
system as exists today and the population, the summer population, as
we perceive it from past years and trying to use it as a guide for what's
going to happen in the future, do we have adequate road capacity to
move the people away from the coast and inland?
MR. FEDER: If your only orientation is evacuation, I'm not sure
you have sufficient lanes or ever will.
MR. MUDD: Now, Norman, the question he--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I --
MR. MUDD: See, this whole -- this whole discussion I'm having
problems with at this particular juncture.
The Florida building code was changed after some serious events
happened on the east coast in a particular hurricane and started
Page 146
March 22-23, 2005
changing in the '90s, and then there was another upgrade that
happened in '96, and there's been another further upgrade that's
happened just recently in 2000.
"Those changes to the building code basically got it to the point in
time that the home that you live in pretty much becomes a shelter in
and of itself. And so the entire State of Florida, under the new
construction rules, is basically saying that they're building homes that
can withstand a category four hurricane in your particular
neighborhood.
So if you live in a newer-built home, it is better to stay within
your home than it is to go to that particular shelter. Anything that was
built before that time, it's good to go to a shelter because you don't
have the structural strength of your particular home to withstand that
kind of category.
Now, the one place that you have an issue is in the coastal zone
because there's a thing called storm surge. And if and when a storm
surge comes in, may it be the eight-foot, the 16- foot, or whatever it is
based on that hurricane, then those -- those particular people that live
along the coast will be asked to evacuate from the coastal zone to get
inland, okay.
You heard us talk this summer about, do you have a friend that
lives inland? Stay with them. These are the shelters that are opened
up in order to do that particular issue.
Of those four hurricanes that hit this summer, I don't believe that
all the shelters in Collier County were opened, nor were the capacities
reached in any of the shelters that we did open in anyone of those four
areas, and I believe the same can be said for the east coast, and I will
say -- and I will start defining that and I will talk about in the Miami
regIon.
I can't tell you what happened up in the West Palm region after
those two storms hit as far as their capacity levels, and I don't have
Dan to tell me what those numbers were. But there's been some
Page 147
March 22-23, 2005
significant progress with the building codes to make the house that
you live in hurricane sustainable and a place where you could stay if
and when you're having a hurricane.
The exception is storm surge along the coast. And depending on
that, the severity of that process, then evacuation might be in order.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me try to put this into perspective.
And I sat through Donna here in 1960 . Not this Donna. I could never
sit through this Donna.
We're talking about 190 residents, people; 190 people, okay?
And living on the coast, I know that the occupancy rate of those
buildings is about 25 percent during hurricane season.
So, you know, we're -- we're talking about maybe 50 people total
who might need evacuation here. And while I understand the concern
-- and it's always best to err on the side of caution, this is not a crisis.
And I just wanted to point out that we have to deal with this in
some sort of proportion. If we were talking about 2,000 residents
here, I would be as concerned as Commissioner Halas is. But in this
particular case, we're talking about 95 dwelling units and roughly 190
people, 80 percent of whom won't even be here during a hurricane.
But nevertheless, Commissioner Halas is concerned, and I think
his concern should be noted, but I don't think we need to take up the
whole afternoon talking about evacuating 40 or 50 people.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I'd like to do is move on so
we can hear the rest of the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you're right. I'd like to do that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just two more questions but on
the same thing, but I have to get my glasses first.
Okay. Once again, and this is the last I'll hit of it. Talking about
coastal high hazard zone, consideration should be given to encourage
minimization of density. And then it says coastal high hazard area is
area subject to flooding with the high potential for life and property
Page 148
---~-,._",..",,.---,--.....",,~~.
March 22-23, 2005
loss.
Then you go taking a look at this, now we've thoroughly
discussed 95 units and how many people would be there, but what
about a hotel? If you have 230 rooms in a hotel, then you have the
employees that clean the hotel and serve in the restaurants and so
forth, not just living there or not just occupancy, you've got the people
that actually work there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, could I address
that, I think, for you? What happens a lot of times in those hotels,
when there's a storm that's nearing in a particular area, the hotels are
the very first to shut down. They tell people to get out of the area
prior to even us issuing a voluntary evacuation.
MR. von RINTELN: And for the record, Jim von Rinteln, again.
And that's true. Because of their liability insurance, as soon as we
issue an evacuation order, if they haven't already evacuated, they close
down and evacuate, so--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. That's what I needed
to know.
And the other thing was, we were talking about density before
with David. What type of -- now we've talked about what density is
allowed in the coastal high hazard area. What kind of density is
figured in with the 230-room hotel or a high-end shopping area? I
mean, we all understand what -- you know, four units per acre,
although someplace in here it even says three units per acre. And I
was wondering what that was.
But anyway, what kind of density would you even put those into
a category of?
MR. WEEKS: Again, for the record, David Weeks. We don't
calculate hotel population. It's viewed as transient, and the figures we
produce each year are permanent population.
Now, we do produce peak season population figures as well, but
peak season being now during the winter and spring months, not being
Page 149
March 22-23, 2005
during the storm season, which is during the summer and fall.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I was actually going for the
traffic consideration, and I was thinking, if you have 95 units versus
230 units, plus the people that service those 230, or high-end
shopping, which is a destination point, I was wondering what the
difference is with the traffic congestion on that particular road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: C-4 or commercial? Comparing to
commercial or hotel?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Both, because hotel is one, but then
the shopping area, C-4, is another.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The residential will provide 537 trips per
day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The commercial would provide 7,292
trips per day, and the hotel would provide 1,301 trips.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and I have those figures.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the question she's trying to
ask is, what is the dwelling units per acre for the commercial? And
the commercial is zero.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So you can't compare those
things at all --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- as far as --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because it's zero.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Coastal high hazard it's okay
to have a 230-room hotel, but it's not okay to have any more than four
dwelling units. I'm having a problem with that one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, in a commercial, in this
particular piece of commercial property, there are no dwelling units
that are available to be -- to be exploited.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we going to be able to move on
now?
Page 150
March 22-23,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Break first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we're going to take a 10-minute
break, and then I hope we can proceed to public input.
You don't have anything more to tell us, do you?
MR. BOSI: Staff has concluded their presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a 10-minute
break, and then we'll start with public input.
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please
take your seats. We've come back into session.
Do we have a live mike out there?
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. We're
back in session now.
We are now going into public comment. I'd like to get everyone
back in their seats before we begin public comment, please. I hope we
have most everyone back in the room now.
Ladies and gentlemen, this particular issue has been heard by the
Board of County Commissioners before where most of the same issues
were discussed, not all of them, most of them.
We have had the chance to look at the tapes of the Planning
Commission meeting where this issue was discussed. I have heard all
of the testimony that was presented at that particular meeting.
We have read your e-mails, we have read your letters, we have
talked to you on the telephone or in person.
Now, I am not going to try to limit anyone's ability to speak, but
we have 47 speakers. If we allow each one three minutes, we're going
to be here a long, long time. I figure that -- at least two and a half
hours of just public comment before we ever get to the point of trying
to debate this issue and make a decision, which is what you want to
hear.
So what I would ask that you do is that if you have new
information to share with us, information that has not been made
Page 151
March 22-23,2005
available to us before, we encourage you to give it to us, if you believe
that statements have been made that are not correct, please tell us, and
if you believe that there are reasons why either of these positions -- or
these petitions are not in the public best interest, we're glad to listen to
your arguments.
So -- but I would ask that as people get up and speak, that you
not be repetitious. It does no good to tell us 47 times that you don't
like it or that you do like it. It's not going to make the case any clearer
for us to do that.
So if someone has already made your point, I would appreciate it
if you could just stand up and say, I agreed with that person, and sit
down and waive your right to speak. But you will not be deprived of
your right to speak. If each of you wants to speak for three minutes,
we will sit here for the next two and a half hours and let you do that.
So with that, we will begin the public speakers. Ms. Filson will
call two names. We would like for the one person to come -- we can
handle both microphones on this, right?
One person to come to one microphone, the other person line up
at the second microphone, and that way we can continue this flow of
speakers in the most expeditious manner. So thank you very much for
your cooperation.
And we're ready to start, Ms. Filson. Who are the first two
speakers?
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, I had one additional speaker,
which brings it to 48.
The first person is Gary Eidson. He will be followed by William
Hyde.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Hyde on that one? You want
to take that one?
MR. EIDSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Hyde, if you'll take this one.
Don't speak at the same time, okay.
Page 152
March 22-23,2005
MR. EIDSON: We have the same script. My name is Gary
Eidson. I am a concerned and informed resident of Glen Eden on
Vanderbilt Drive located a quarter of a mile from the former Wiggins
Pass Marina. I am representing the sentiments of numerous Glen
Eden residents. Thank you for the time to speak today.
One of the biggest traffic enforcement problems is people
running red lights. Instead of slowing down, when the yellow caution
light comes on people speed and run the red light. The consequences
of not observing the law can be disastrous.
Our community has a coastal high hazard area that limits
development to four units per acre. It is there to protect us. A request
to seek an exception to this limit is like the yellow light. We as
citizens, however, do not have direct control over the consequences.
We have to depend on our elected officials to be sure that the
limitations are followed. Setting the precedent that these limits have
no meaning can be disastrous. Even if the light is improperly placed,
until that light is moved or the timing changed, we have to observe the
law.
Last summer the commission affirmed that the coastal high
hazard limits of four units per acre should be maintained and in force.
This light seems to be working fine.
I ask the commission to deny the petition for any residential use
that exceeds the four-unit limit or exceeds the height of 75 feet as the
C-4 zoning now prescribes.
Another yellow light is the question of the destination hotel
petition. Once again, a law was created requiring that a golf course be
part of a package if the hotel does not front the Gulf. Again, we are
relying on your protection.
When I petitioned our Glen Eden homeowners, I did not ask if
they wanted residential over commercial. I asked if they wanted the
county to follow the law.
The e-mails have been coming in supporting the position that the
Page 153
March 22-23, 2005
commission deny the petition for a destination hotel as well as a
petition for a 95-unit residential complex.
If the developer wishes to build a 75-foot high building and
maintain a land density of four units per acre, I could not argue the
legality of that ruling.
If the developer wishes to develop a destination hotel that
includes a golf course in the package as prescribed by the land
development code, I could not argue with that ruling.
It might be nice to have a marina back in the neighborhood, but
that issue is not on the table at this time. The issue here seems to
come down to a matter of law. Offers to build parking lots and
walkways do not justify circumvention of the law.
Thank you for your consideration, the service you give, and the
integrity you bring to your position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Gary.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William Hyde. He'll be
followed by Cam Gleason.
MR. HYDE: Good afternoon. My name is William Hyde. I'm
from Tallahassee, Florida, and I'm an attorney appearing on behalf of
the North Bay Civic Association. I will adopt and incorporate the
comments of the prior speaker to move things along.
You have three options today. You can deny the rezoning, leave
it at C-4, that's perfectly, legally permissible, you can approve
residential, but only at a maximum of four dwelling units per acre, or
you can approve a conditional use for a conventional hotel with an
FAR not to exceed .6. You can -- those are your three options. You
can't do anything beyond those three options to be consistent with
your land development code and your comprehensive plan.
Now, just -- let's touch on the marina issue for a moment. Your
county's been growing by leaps and bounds, and so have the number
of boaters and boats, and you need boat access in this county, and you
are proposing by this rezoning, if do you rezone it, to take 450 dry
Page 154
March 22-23, 2005
storage slips out of your inventory, plus 50 plus wet slips.
I'd submit to you that that's a good public policy choice if you
want to ensure continued access to the water for the public down here.
I just think that's bad. And you should really consider that very
closely and carefully before you allow this property to be
permanently, and I emphasize that, permanently converted to another
use.
I don't see how your staff or the developer can make any
argument that four dwelling units per acre does not apply. They are
ignoring the clear import of the English language. They can twist it
and torque it any way they want, but that's what the policy says.
And the case law in Florida says you have to apply and give
force to each and every element in your comprehensive plan. You
don't get to pick and choose, you don't get to say one trumps the other.
-+ They have to be all applied with equal consistency and the courts
are going to apply strict scrutiny when they review these kinds of
things to make sure that you do apply each and every element in your
comprehensive plan.
And I want to point out to you, there's a very interesting advisory
opinion of the attorney general from 1996 which dealt with a very
substantially similar situation where Escambia County thought that it
found an error in how you calculated density, and they said -- they
asked the attorney general, said, well, can we administratively
reinterpret our comprehensive plan to ignore this provision and
approve what we thought we were intending to do in the first place?
And the attorney general says no. If you want to do something
like that, you have to amend your comprehensive plan. If you want to
approve residential density in this project, you have to limit it to four
dwelling units per acre or amend your comprehensive plan. One or
the other. You cannot approve 95 units here, and a court is going to
knock that down.
And all of the people in this room that are supporting the
Page 155
March 22-23, 2005
rezoning to residential, I think would be very happy if you just limited
it to 40 (sic) units per acre -- 40 units, excuse me, for the entire site.
Now, that's -- and I really wish you would give that very careful
consideration. Think about what the plain English language says. I
mean, how can you get around it? It says four dwelling units per acre
in a coastal high hazard area. Eighty-five percent of this site,
according to the facts of this case, undisputed facts of this case, are --
is the coastal high hazard area.
How do you get around that? You have to ignore the plain
meaning of the English language to do that, and that's what the
developer's asking you to do, and that's what your staff, weirdly, is
suggesting that you do. And I think that's just bizarre and really
extreme.
Now, as to the issue of the conditional use approval, folks, this
project does not front on the Gulf of Mexico. Since it does not front
on the Gulf of Mexico, it has to have an on-site golf course in order to
be a destination resort. Your staff has told you that. It can't be
approved as a 230-room conditional use destination resort. It could be
approved as a 130 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you wrap it up for us, please?
MR. HYDE: Yes, I am trying to wrap up. And I would suggest
to you the absurdity of all the argument, today was best encapsulated
by the remark that we really don't need to have anything other than a
putt-putt gulf course. That, to me, suggests to you how torqued and
extreme the analysis has been to try to persuade you that somehow,
someway, magically, a destination resort ought to be approved,
somehow magically you ought to ignore the clear import of the
English language.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Cam Gleason, followed by
Bruce Burkhard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is Bruce Burkhard here? Bruce, if we
Page 156
March 22-23, 2005
could get you over here, thanks.
MS. GLEASON: Good afternoon. My name is Cam Gleason,
and I live in Northshore Lake Villas. I'm a former member of the
board of directors of the Estuary Conservation Association, and I feel I
need to clarify the motion that was made and passed at its January
27th board meeting because it has been incompletely represented to
the EAC and the Planning Commission.
It's true that at this hastily-called board meeting the vote was 5-3
to recommend a residential development over a commercial one;
however, the motion also contains the following wording which has
been omitted in previous presentations.
Quote, the ECA adheres to its positions previously stated in prior
hearings concerning height limitations, density limitations, and eagle
taking, unquote.
You should be aware that the previously-stated positions that
were placed in the record last year by Attorney Mimi W ollock
representing the ECA are: Recommendations that the height of the
condo units should be limited to the height of the Bald Eagle's nest,
this is approximately 40 feet, and that there should be no construction
during the eagle nesting season. Incidentally, eight members of a
20-person board made that decision without officially polling their
membership.
My last comment is just for me personally. This property is
unique and it should have unique protections, but it doesn't. Somehow
or another the property is lumped into a commercial zone with a
bunch of other non-water-related uses.
So you will have to protect it with your own GMP which charges
that you shall -- and it says shall, not may -- shall continue to ensure
that access to beaches, shores, and waterways remain available to the
public.
If you rezone this property into a private enclave, you're not
meeting your charge. You have criticized your predecessors for failed
Page 157
March 22-23, 2005
opportunities to plan for future water access for a burgeoning
population. What legacy do you want to leave in Collier County?
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bruce.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Burkhard. He will be followed by Diane
Shanley.
MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Burkhard. I live in the Vanderbilt Beach area on Oak
Avenue, just off of Vanderbilt Drive.
So since I live in the area, I drive it every day. When I bought
my house, one of the appealing aspects of N orth Naples was
specifically that the area was interesting and varied with mixed uses
that shared the landscape.
Such things as the white pristine sand dunes, which have now
become condos, the Vanderbilt Inn, which provided restaurant and bar
facilities, plus overflow guest rooms for my guests. We're soon going
to lose the Vanderbilt Inn to another condo.
The other mixed use in this area, which I frequently took
advantage of, was the Wiggins Pass Marina. It had been part of the
neighborhood for decades, was completely open to the public, unlike
some of the assertions that said that it was only open to the limited
wealthy. Everybody was free to get in there.
And my family and friends watched numerous sunsets from the
water's edges, we rented boats there, we bought clothing and
refreshments from the retail store.
The gates are now padlocked. We're told that the property is and
will remain private. I certainly hope that you won't allow the public to
be barred from one of the very last remaining public access points in
North Collier.
I really believe that it would be wrong and badly perceived if this
commission succumbs to the enticements of checkbook zoning, that is,
we'll give you $2 million if you give us what we -- the rezone that we
Page 158
March 22-23, 2005
want.
The mixed use character that existed when virtually every person
in the room here bought his or her property should be preserved. The
way to do it is simple, deny the rezone. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Diane Shanley. She'll be followed by B.J.
Savard- Boyer.
MS. SHANLEY: Good morning. For the record, I am Diane
Shanley of Collier's Reserve speaking on behalf of the board of
directors of our homeowners' association. I did have a nice speech
here with lots of super segues. I will try to limit it as per the request
by Commissioner Coyle.
But we do have several concerns about the proj ects you're
considering today. First of all is why the concerned citizens of North
Naples don't want the hotel and prefer to have a higher-in-height,
height-way, building in the residential buildings that they're
considering, that you're considering.
We at Collier's Reserve have already fought a plan that was
brought forward for the neighborhood ofWalkerbilt Road and U.S.
41. There's a piece of property there where height was an issue, and
we really fought it, successfully. We don't want to fight that battle
agaIn.
And whether you might believe or not that you're setting a
precedent or not setting a precedent here and that one issue, one
decision, doesn't affect the others, I believe -- and I think it's been
shown in many other circumstances -- that lawyers and developers
will find ways to say, you gave that to this particular project, well,
here's what we're doing on our project, so why can't we have the same
thing.
And what we're going to do after a time, even though we're trying
to keep high buildings out of our coastal area so we don't start
resembling the east coast, we're going to have creep. I just believe
that that's going to happen whether that's what the commissioner's
Page 159
March 22-23, 2005
believe or not.
Secondly, I'm just wondering what the concerned citizens of
North Naples want to keep out of their supposed residential area. I
agree, Vanderbilt Inn will be going away soon and I have no place to
go -- I'm not a boater. I have no place to go if I want to have a nice
drink, a nice dinner, look across the mangroves. I'm one of the lucky
ones. I have a very nice golf club to go to, but that's not the case with
everybody that lives in our particular area of North Naples.
And so I -- I ask that you not give this particular piece of land up
to a residential development without thinking about the fact that
access belongs to everyone.
Lastly, there has been some talk about traffic. I've gone through
that particular area recently -- hadn't been by there in a long time --
and I didn't realize how little traffic there was on that road.
But I also looked, I also -- excuse me. I will give you -- I will
give you the permission (sic) to speak and will not make comments
while you're speaking. I ask that you not do it while I am.
I've gone by that road, and I know that it is not as heavily
traveled as where I live. I know it's not as heavily traveled as U.S. 41,
but I saw a lot of vacant land there, and that land is going to go to
development, and there is going to be traffic on that particular piece of
road.
So I don't think traffic is the issue here that everybody's talking
about. We're going to get traffic there because it's going to be
developed.
So I thank you very much for your consideration and I hope that
you vote against the residential rezone, and if you must vote for
something vote for the hotel. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: B.J. Savard-Boyer. She will be followed by
Rebecca Knowles.
MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
Page 160
March 22-23, 2005
name is B.J. Savard-Boyer. I'm speaking today in my capacity as
president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association. I
officially represent homeowner members from Vanderbilt Beach Road
to Wiggins Pass Bridge and Vanderbilt Drive to the Gulf of Mexico.
At the last meeting of our board of directors we voted un -- we
voted unanimously to request you to deny the two alternatives being
offered to you today as the Coconilla project.
Our reasons are simple. Both projects violate the land
development code and the growth management plan. We think it's
time development towed the line with our codes, which are written to
protect all of us.
Any development in the coastal high hazard area that exceeds
four units per acre is a negative to our safety due to traffic congestion
and evacuation in time of hurricanes. We live here. We're the ones
who are at risk from overdevelopment.
I have this -- the very same map that was shown earlier with four
shelters that District 2 has, but you know where they are because it
was pointed out to you before.
So we don't have that -- first of all, they're pretty far away.
Secondly, the other thing that comes up is the EOC did a model, and if
Charley would have had a normal eye of 20 miles wide, we would
have been under 15 feet of water, so there you are.
Now, I have a picture here of where the slosh area would be, so
look at that. If you look at that, and you're looking at 15 feet of water
in that whole area -- I understand Golden Gate Community Center is
also under water. So with that, this is -- this is what we're facing.
We'd also like the new buildings not to exceed the limit of75 feet
over FEMA. We applaud your recent efforts to hold the line in this
area and encourage you to continue this policy.
Weare against awarding increased floor area ratio to a hotel that
does not meet criteria for a destination resort hotel.
We don't understand how one person can get property zoned
Page 161
March 22-23, 2005
while ignoring rezoning criteria. This property is useful as it is, and, in
fact, we'll allow to remain C-4 in the last round of planning because it
provided the public with water access.
It's plainly irresponsible to award density bonuses for any reason
in the coastal high hazard area. The idea's suggested by staff that
approval should be given for this PUD because this developer's
projects can't be built as proposed. With this type of thinking, the
developer is getting his density bonus and waterfront. It's contrary to
the code, and exceptions should not be given.
We ask that you deny these proposals based on the facts. The
property does not meet the tests required for rezoning, and the proj ects
do not meet the requirements of the growth management plan and the
land development code.
Thank you for giving me the extra minute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rebecca Knowles. She'll be
followed by Doug Fee.
MS. KNOWLES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Rebecca
Knowles. I live at Cove Towers. I've been present at many of the
meetings concerning the marina property. I'm disturbed by both
proposals that are being brought forward to you today.
In my opinion both proposals are too vast for this fragile
environment. Please scale back the residential proposal and be firm in
your denial of the destination resort hotel. In my opinion a smaller
hotel would be acceptable.
You may be aware that Carl Hiaasen, the Miami Herald
columnist, was in Naples recently. Let me quote to you a few things
he said while he was here.
Naples is at a critical time in its growth. Many of the same
mistakes we made in Miami are being made over here. Among those
mistakes, bad planning and political cowardice. It's growth for the
sake of growth, he said, which is always deadly.
Page 162
March 22-23, 2005
Recently I attended a presentation by Jack Wert, the executive
director of the Convention and Visitor's Bureau. He handed out the
200 -- 2005 Official Visitor's Guide. Welcome to Florida's Last
Paradise.
I fear that our paradise is rapidly disappearing. It will truly be a
great pity if this lovely area of Naples is destroyed by
overdevelopment. Please have the moral courage to say no to the
excesses proposed.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Doug Fee. He'll be followed by Dr. Richard
Bing.
MR. FEE: Good after, Commissioners. For the record, my name
is Doug Fee. And I'd first like to start off and say thank you for this
opportunity to speak.
The purpose of the North Bay Civic Association, which was
founded in 2001, is a volunteer organization dedicated to the
preservation of high-quality residential, recreation, environmental,
marine, and compatible commercial use within its area of
responsibility .
The organization will oppose intrusions detrimental to these
standards by maintaining liaisons with governing bodies so as to
influence decision-making, remaining alert to actions that are of
concern to the community.
We will exercise vigilance in zoning matters, inform and educate
the citizens of our community of the problems and promote the
general welfare and heritage of the North Bay neighborhood to
maintain its unique character for the future generations.
We have a nine-member board. Each of our board members live
in various neighborhoods within the North Bay area. We have
obviously, like yourself, followed this for two and a half years.
The North Bay Civic has a simple and very defensible position.
We will support any development that is entirely consistent with the
Page 163
March 22-23, 2005
county's land development regulations and is, of course, legally vetted
and approved through the public process.
We, however, believe there are serious growth management plan
deficiencies with both the residential rezone as well as the land
development code definition of the destination resort hotel; therefore,
we would say, deny the rezones.
Now, with that said, there is a way to make these, in our
opinions, legal, lawful, proper. We would support the residential if it's
at four units to the acre, as well as we really feel it should be at a
height of 75 feet. That's what the current zoning is.
The neighborhood is built out. There are many residents who
live in the very vicinity, and this is their sky. It's at 75 feet. That's
where we -- as far as the destination resort hotel, we'll support the
smaller conventional hotel. We, however, do not feel it's appropriate
to give them the bigger hotel.
While Florida implemented one of the nation's first growth
management acts and requires local entities to adopt growth plans of
their own, there is no state oversight of compliance.
State law 163.3215 actually puts citizens in charge of seeing to it
that local governments observe their own land development
regulations in Circuit Court if necessary.
Just a few more comments. One is, Mr. Humiston made a
comment about the manatee protection plan, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Fee, if you could wrap it up.
MR. FEE: Okay. If I could just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've told us what you want us to vote
-- how you want us to vote.
MR. FEE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there more that you want to tell us?
MR. FEE: Well, I had a comment on one of the staff
stipulations, and I'll be very brief on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
Page 164
March 22-23, 2005
MR. FEE: That has to do with the manatee protection plan.
If you have an ability to move that down.
Long and short of it is, in the manatee protection plan is a graphic
page that has marina restrictions listed, and it says in our area in the --
in our area there is a draft limitation less than three feet.
And I want to clarify that we would not support any draft greater
than that. We feel it's in the manatee protection plan, so if that's
something you can consider.
The setback from the property line of the Cocohatchee Bay PUD
for the marina basin, they are asking you for, I believe, no setback for
that wall. We believe that that is a very sensitive area. We do not feel
that they should be given that variance, okay? And that's it.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Richard Bing. He'll be followed by George
Sichanis.
DR. BING: Richard Bing, 10951 Gulfshore Drive. Mr.
Chairman, Commissioners, good afternoon.
I'm objecting to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't
understand why all the no rezone people are grouped together and the
other people get their last dibs. I would like to have a chance to
respond to the other people from the public.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As I understand it, they were handed in
to Ms. Filson in one large group, all in the order you wished them to
speak in, and they were handled in the way you requested.
DR. BING: No. We asked to speak second to the proponents, if
you will, and we don't have a chance --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why shouldn't they have the same
right to --
DR. BING: Well, they can respond and they -- they, as the
applicant, get a chance to rebut everything at the end. You see what I
mean? We're not having an opportunity that's equal.
Page 165
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you want to do that rather than have
them do it?
DR. BING: No. They can do it as long as we get our chance to
do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Continue with your three minutes, Dr.
Bing. Thank you.
DR. BING: Okay. I do object. Anyway, we don't -- as president
of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, we have no problem with
residential use of this property providing it meets the current law,
which is clear.
And I can assure you that it will hold up in court if you go greater
than four units per acre.
Secondly, on the hotel destination, it does -- destination resort, it
does not meet the criteria clearly.
Thirdly, I think it's absurd for anybody to imply that a miniature
golf course meets the definition of a golf course.
And lastly, I think the layman's opinion that was brought up in
the CCPC about the quality of the water since the marina has closed is
strictly an objective, or subjective, layman's opinion. And I, as a
scientist, I would object to that holding any merit, because I would
like to see the data to prove that.
Thank you for your time. Please do not vote for the rezone and
follow what the law says as you execute your decision this afternoon.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: George Sichanis. He'll be followed by Richard
Zeusler.
MR. SICHANIS: Commissioners, for the record my name's
George Sichanis. I live in Tarpon Cove. I have -- about 95 percent of
the things that I wanted to talk about have already been covered.
I'll just make one point, a short one, and that is the hurricane
season is from June the 1st through November the 30th, if I am
Page 166
March 22-23, 2005
correct. And by the first of November, you probably have 90 percent
of the people that are gone back again. So if you did have a hurricane
in November, you'd have a harder problem trying to get them vacated.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Richard Zeusler. He'll be followed by Nicole
Ryan.
MR. ZEUSLER: Yes. For the record, my name is Richard
Zeusler. I live at Bay Forest. And I, like so many others, would ask
you to not approve the addition -- additional units that they want to put
in as far as that is concerned. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. She'll be followed by Richard
Ryder.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida.
The Conservancy is not opposed to the development concept
involved in either proj ect regarding residential or hotel. Our concerns
are with the proximity of the project to an active Bald Eagle's nest and
the fact that both proposals would continue construction in the
secondary zone throughout the nesting season. Our opposition is due
to the likely negative impacts on eagle nest CO-19.
The Conservancy believes that Collier County has the authority
and, very importantly, the obligation under the growth management
plan to protect this nest, even though the Fish and Wildlife Service
seems willing to sacrifice it.
Authority is in the CCM eagle 7, which states that the county
shall protect and conserve its fisheries and wildlife.
Then this is further expanded upon in objective 7.1, which goes
on to state that the county shall direct incompatible land uses away
from listed species and their habitats.
Page 167
March 22-23,2005
Of course, this leads to the much-debated policy, 7.1.2, paragraph
3. One sentence in the policy states that whatever the agencies say
will be deemed consistent with the plan. But there's a second sentence
in that policy, and that sentence which is the first sentence of the
policy -- and the Conservancy believes is the most important sentence
of the policy -- states the county has to be consistent with applicable
GMP policies.
The Conservancy believes that that policy of -- or that objective
of directing incompatible land uses away from listed species and their
habitats is an applicable policy that should be applied here.
And if you place the emphasis on this first sentence in that
policy, then you currently do have the ability to look at whether a take
is consistent with the growth plan.
And as such, there are many unanswered questions here. For
example, what is the minimum viable population of eagles for Collier
County? What behavioral changes might be expected as a result of
this action? Will the eagles' home range change? Will they be forced
into competition with other eagles in the area?
Will this result in the loss of both pairs of eagles? How will this
impact the foraging habitat? And can we accept a take without
knowing all of these ramifications? Would this be consistent with
your growth plan? And what we're looking at here is likely going to
cause negative effects to these eagles.
The petitioner has offered to do a number of things including
hiring an Audubon-approved eagle monitor. But regardless of all this,
if you look at the biological opinion, it states there are no known
beneficial effects to the Bald Eagle from the proposed activity.
It also states the Bald Eagles occupying the action area are likely
to be adversely affected by the proposed action.
To conclude, the Conservancy believes the county has both the
authority and the obligation to deny rezones and conditional uses
based upon an applicant's failure to direct incompatible land uses
Page 168
March 22-23, 2005
away from listed species and their habitat.
While we acknowledge that the EAC did recommend some
improving stipulations, we do not believe they went far enough.
We ask the petitions before you be denied or approved only if
construction is prohibited during the nesting season. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Richard Ryder.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like a point of order. As one of
the people noted, that we're all -- we're getting all one-sided, and it
would be interesting to hear the flavor of the opposing -- other side
also. And I think all we're getting here is we're getting one side of the
conversation, and I don't think it's a good mixture of whoever's for or
against.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think if you'll listen to all of the
speakers, you'll get that flavor. You'll know who's for and against.
The problem is, that as I understand it, some of these came in in a
bundle. They were handed to Ms. Filson--
MS. FILSON: Yes. I call them as I get them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, and she's calling them as she gets
them. So that's perfectly fair. It's consistent with what we've done in
the past. And I don't want to get into a fight about --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't either --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- who gets to talk first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- I just wanted to make sure that
we have equal representation in the discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, when we finish up we can add up
the totals, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a quick suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about -- and I know this is
little bit different, but I'm sure the chair could give it a blessing. We
take the next slip off the bottom, then the following slip off the top,
and just go that way.
Page 169
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. I'm not changing the process.
We started with the process of first in, first out, and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. It's your call. You're the
chair.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You're the chair, yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I think we're smart enough to
sort through who's in support and who's not, and we can add up the
numbers as we go along.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Richard Ryder. He'll be
followed by Joe Connolly.
MR. RYDER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Richard Ryder,
M.D., Cove Towers, North Naples.
The developer is making it sound like he'll be giving access to the
public if the marina property is rezoned from waterfront commercial
to residential. He's really taking access away from the public. When
the marina was there, it never barred the public.
The developer says he will provide boat slips. This gives access
only to the boaters. The illegal 9.6 condos per acre would give access
to approximately 200 people. The legal 4.0 condos per acre would
give access to approximately 100 people.
The hotel allowed under current zoning would allow roughly
30,000 people per year access at 70 percent occupancy, plus residents
to enjoy the site and the facilities.
Neighbors at the Ritz and the Registry are not complaining about
traffic problems. In fact, they seem quite proud of their distinguished
neighbors.
The developer also says he'll provide a shuttle to Barefoot Beach.
According to the Friends of Barefoot Beach, this will disturb the
fragile estuary, require a long boardwalk through the mangroves. A
lot of concerns environmentally yet to be worked out here.
Rezoning will forever take away this once-in-a-lifetime chance to
Page 170
March 22-23, 2005
give all residents true access to a beautiful site. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Joe Connolly. He'll be followed by Hall Eaton.
MR. CONNOLLY: For the record, Joe Connolly, and I live at
10633 Gu1fshore Drive, and I'm just going to take a minute, because I
agree that you should follow the law and deny both of these, but I
think you need to realize that in this residential -- I mean this hotel
they're proposing, that they're going to sell those units, and the unit
size is 1,000 square feet or greater, and it has a kitchen and a living
room and a dining area, and it's more like a small condo than it is a
hotel, and I think we've gone down this primrose path once before, as
we have on the destination resort hotel, and it's a farce. They're just
trying to get additional density, and I want you to see through it.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Hall Eaton. He'll be followed by Ben Briskey.
MR. EATON: To the commission, I would like to defer most of
my -- what I wanted to say has been covered, and, therefore, I would
like to defer my prayers with Frank Halas. And--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that mean you support or you
oppose the approval of these petitions?
MR. EATON: Oh, okay. Dis -- I support -- I'm not in favor of
getting away from the commercial zoning that is currently there, all
right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Ben Briskey. He'll be followed by Bill Pittman.
MR. BRISKEY: I was not going to speak until I heard a couple
things, and I had to get up, and I'll be very brief.
But there was a lady here from the Vanderbilt Beach Association
and a lawyer for the North Bay Association and Doug Fee, and they
stand up here and act as if they represent all the members of that
association. Well, I'm a member, and I certainly don't agree with
Page 171
March 22-23, 2005
anything they said.
So the gentleman that was the lawyer should not make a
statement about representing all the members, because, you know, I'm
not.
Well, I moved to Pelican Bay -- I'm sorry -- to Pelican Isle about
two or three months ago, and this project is right in our front door, or
in our back yard. So I would certainly hope that you would go
favorably for residential instead of a shopping center or a hotel there,
because we're the ones that are going to live right there with it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bill Pittman. He'll be followed by Don Neal.
MR. PITTMAN: Okay. Bill Pittman. And we've -- I'll echo the
previous speaker's comments. We've heard from a number of people
who have -- who -- from areas that are not directly affected by the
proposed rezone. For instance, Collier's Reserve.
And the statements they make are that they represent their
board's vote, not their membership vote. I live at the Anchorage,
small condominium unit just south of the site. And after some public
presentations, we polled our membership, and the vote was 19 for
residential, zero for hotels.
Secondly, I understand the same thing was done at Marina Bay,
which is right next door, and the vote was 58 votes for residential, two
for the resort hotel. The reasons are obvious, the traffic and so forth.
But I would encourage you to listen to the neighbors who are
immediately affected by this site and vote for the rezone to residential.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Don Neal. He'll be followed by Bonnie Karkut.
MR. NEAL: Council, I'm Don Neal. I live at Pelican Isle, right
next to your site. I would like to donate the balance of my time to the
extensive survey that was done by the concerned residents. Linda
Roosa's the spokesman for that. I'd like the balance of my time to be
Page 1 72
March 22-23, 2005
used so that can be heard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, sir.
MS. FILSON: Bonnie Karkut. She'll be followed by Mary-Lou
Eaton.
MS. KARKUT: Excuse me. Take my three minutes to put on
my glasses.
I, too, had a little bit more lengthy address for you today, but in
an effort to conclude in a shorter length of time, I'll try to sum this up,
and I thank you for this opportunity to speak.
I believe I stated I'm Bonnie Karkut. I presently reside in the
North Naples Community of Tarpon Cove. Presently I'm on the board
of North Bay Civic Association, but I have resided in Collier County
since 1985.
And as you already know, the volunteer work of North Bay is to
preserve our coastal Florida lifestyle for present and future
generations. I cannot stress enough how important it is that the C-4
commercial zoning remains intact.
To do what is right for the public is usually not foremost in most
our minds. Most of us want what profits ourselves as individuals.
Residents of the community surrounding the Wiggins Pass Marina
property knew when they purchased that the zoning of that property
was commercial.
The marina was open and operating for the public, and there was
a precedent in the area for the denial of rezoning from commercial to
residential.
It has been stated that the property surrounding the Wiggins Pass
Marina property is all residential when, in fact, the properties are R T,
residential tourist district section 2.2.8, which corresponds with and
implements the urban mixed use district.
I mentioned speaking for other residents besides myself within
the North Bay Civic Association boundaries and far beyond.
A brief summation of the petitions. Petition one, very brief
Page 1 73
March 22-23,2005
summation. Density limiting to four units per acre within the coastal
high hazard area as per growth management plan 12.2.2.
Petition two, protection of our grand Collier eagles.
Petition 3, height -- building should not be constructed above the
75 foot C-4 commercial limit as the property is currently zoned.
The legal representative for the Eco Venture Group in rebuttal
before the Collier County Planning Commission on March 3rd of this
year stated that our three petitions were not relevant to the issues this
season.
If these petitions do not apply, then following the county law and
the policies of the growth management plan and the LDC are not
significant. I fail to understand that logic.
Signatures on the petition totaled approximately 3,500 signatures.
I have today in my hand the signed petitions measuring 72- foot long if
unrolled.
Ed Oe1schlaeger of Eco Venture Group was quoted in the Indiana
saying he is giving the BOCC another chance to get right. I ask, right
for whom? The public or a few chosen individuals?
The decision that is made today affects all Collier County
residents and sets a precedent for the future. Please, BOCC, vote to
preserve the commercial zoning of Wiggins Pass Marina property.
MS. FILSON: Mary-Lou Eaton. She'll be followed by John
Hickey.
MS. EATON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'll try to be
brief, however, I must speak. I live at 654 Wiggins Lake Drive in
North Naples, and I am here to speak to you as a representative of the
board of directors of my condominium association, Wiggins Lake and
Preserve. It's three quarters of a mile from the Wiggins Marina
property .
My remarks reflect the majority viewpoint of our 212 residents,
40 percent of whom live here full time, as do I.
Before I address the issue regarding the rezoning of the former
Page 174
March 22-23,2005
Wiggins Pass Marina, let me take this opportunity to remind each of
you as the chief policy-making body of Collier County, that your
responsibility, above all, is to provide services, to protect the health,
safety, welfare, and quality of life of all of its citizens.
With this responsibility in mind, I urge you to deny the
petitioner's request. The foremost reason, 10.45 acres in the high --
coastal high hazard area of the county, and as such, it requires a
density zoning of no more than four acres -- four units per acre.
In fact, the property where my condominium sits is less than four
units per acre, and it was built starting in the late '80s. This is true of
most of the properties in the area surrounding that marina. Not the
units that have been built since that time. As I understand it, some of
them have violated that trust.
So let me just point out to you that in our opinion, both the height
of the proposed towers, 144 feet with parking, and the 95 units per
acre are being requested only for the purpose of building more units
for more profit.
We believe it is an illegal request and put our trust in you as
commissioners to reject the developer's desires.
In summary, we love our North Naples neighborhood and trust
you will follow your stated policy to keep it safe for the welfare of all.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: John Hickey. He'll be followed by Joe Moreland.
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chairman, I am John Hickey, chairman of
the Community Affairs Committee of Beachwa1k Residents
Association, and I do represent 356 owner residents in our community
in North Naples.
The petitioner is seeking double the permitted density on the
residential request, and our association strongly requests you not to
approve this rezone.
The petitioner plans two structures reaching 140 feet in height
Page 175
March 22-23, 2005
with the residential rezone request. Existing height limit for structures
under commercial C-4 zoning is 75 feet. This height limit should not
be violated by a PUD. We, again, request you vote no on this rezone
request.
If the residential position is voted down, petitioner seeks
approval for a 230-room destination hotel. Such a hotel provides the
petitioner the ability to utilize a larger floor area ratio than a
conventional hotel.
The definition of a destination hotel requires that it front onto the
Gulf and must have a golf course on the property. This property does
not front on the Gulf, and there is not enough land for a golf course
and facilities on the property. We urge you not to permit a destination
hotel on this property.
Under conditional use, a hotel may be permitted but only as a
conventional hotel with a .60 floor area ratio.
Commissioners, tremendous amounts of your time and thought
have been spent on the Collier County Land Development Code and
the growth management plan. Please don't trash these efforts by
voting for these petitions.
Vote no and stick by the county rules you have established.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Joe Moreland. He'll be followed by William
Eline.
MR. MORELAND: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Joe
Moreland. I'm speaking in behalf of the Estuary Conservation
Association.
As you know, our association's about 20 years old, and we focus
on research, education, public information, and focus that most
sharply on the Wiggins Pass estuary and its estuarial waters.
So I'm coming here today with a narrow but very pointed
preference in behalf of a resolution passed by our board of governors
which was -- and may I make this clear so that some of my colleagues
Page 176
March 22-23, 2005
who apparently are somewhat confused by it -- that if the only issue
that were to be before you today is the question of rezoning or not
rezoning and if that involves whether to use that property, which is
private property, for the purpose of a new marina to be operated on a
commercial basis for a hotel of a commercial type, which would be
very upscale, and by definition, would be a point of destination for
people who could afford to come there and who would, in more
probability, come by boat, and coming by boat from great distances,
including the east coast because there is a thirst for points of
destination for boaters who can afford it, those two things, rather
much in my opinion -- and I'm not speaking for the board on this but I
think it's reasonable -- that those are not the kind of boaters that the
opposition here has quite in mind.
It's not going to be a marina, should it go commercial, in all
probability, economically feasible, that can support trailered boats that
are stored in dry docks. It will be an upscale one probably where you
would buy condo slips at 100 some thousand. But that's not the
business of the estuarial committee, of our organization.
The least environmentally friendly use of those estuarial waters
would be a commercial marina. The next least use would be a
commercial development of the hotel or some other form. The most
environmentally friendly would be a residential community.
N ow that, I submit, if you will allow me to take the liberties as a
former lawyer, is something that is credible enough to take judicial
notice of it, because the minds of reasonable people with or without
quality -- water quality tests can pretty much testify to the fact that
those waters have been undisturbed now for quite a while because of
the closing of the marina.
They've been undisturbed, and the result is wildlife which was
not readily apparent, readily apparent, is now returning, manatees and
so forth.
Hence, the legal issues aside, we have long stood behind
Page 1 77
March 22-23,2005
supporting the eagle and the rules that apply to it, between density and
the rules that apply to it. But I go to what was misunderstood. We
stand for residential property. If the issue before you -- if the only
thing you haven't decided in your mind is whether to go commercial
or residential, go residential.
Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William Eline. He'll be
followed by Dodie Briskey.
MR. ELINE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. And I believe I'm
getting to know each of you. I've appeared, I think, at every one of
these hearings, and I'm going to be very brief.
N either one of these proposals belong on that property. And I
have made a proposal some time ago and that -- I ask that you really
take a look, turn these down, stay with your land development code
and stay with access for people of that waterway. And there's nothing
more to be said. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dodie -- I'm sorry, Dodie
Briskey. She'll be followed by Dick Macken.
MS. BRISKEY: I'm Dodie Briskey. I live at Pelican Isle. We
are members of ECA, Vanderbilt Beach Homeowners' Association,
North Bay Civic Association.
I don't think anybody has polled me or my husband from any of
the organizations who purport to represent me. I have given a handout
to each of you that had some snapshots on there, and I would like if
you would just glance at them, and I think it's going to be on the --
they're on the overhead now.
You can sit and say, you know, we believe in this and we believe
in that and, you know, make decisions about what happens at Collier's
Reserve or what happens in Old Naples. But when you're sitting in
your lanai, your kitchen, your family room, and your bedroom, which
Page 178
March 22-23, 2005
also happens to be my office, these were pictures taken from there.
And if you look at what's in the background there, that is the
marina. That's what's on there now. So I'm -- when I'm saying what is
best for people who are actually in that area, residentially, I think that
we can't vote any other way.
I don't think that when you think of a commercial venture over
there and think of people being paged and trucks backing up, all the
noises that are going on and all that sort of thing you're going to hear,
it's going to come right across the water, and it's going to disturb us,
probably Marina Bay, and probably the Anchorage.
So maybe it's selfish for us to be there and say that this is what
we would like. We would like to have something that's quieter, but
we'd also like to protect the rest of the residents in the area as far as
the traffic goes.
And I don't think that if any of the people in North Bay,
Vanderbilt Beach, any of the other areas or any of the Commissioners
sitting here today were in the same situation, that you would vote to
put a commercial enterprise in your front yard and in your ear sounds.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dick Macken. He'll be
followed by John Findley.
MR. MACKEN: My name is Dick Macken. I live at the
Villages of Emerald Bay where I'm the past president of our
condominium association.
Our owners have taken a strong interest in the fate of the Wiggins
Pass Marina property. I am a concerned and informed resident of
North Naples.
There was a time in Collier County not so long ago when our
elected officials played fast and loose with the rules. We all hope
those days are over.
The county needs to see that the regulations and codes on its
books are enforced. That way everyone, citizens, developers, county
Page 1 79
March 22-23,2005
staff, and elected officials alike will have a level playing field.
Everyone will know what's required and what's expected.
Playing by the rules will put an end to government by exception and
by variance. You have a wonderful opportunity to put that into
practice today.
The developer, Eco Venture, has presented two petitions, one for
a rezone of the property from commercial to residential, the other for a
conditional use in order to build a destination resort hotel. Both
petitions, as presently written, are deficient according to controlling
provisions of the land development code and the growth management
plan.
Section 1.08.02 of the land development code lists the
requirements for a destination resort hotel. A destination resort hotel
must have an on-site golf course and golf-related facilities unless the
hotel fronts on the Gulf of Mexico, in which case the on-site golf
requirement is waived.
As the Wiggins Pass Marina site is located on the estuary of the
Cocohatchee River with the nearest waters of the Gulf of Mexico
about 4,000 feet away, an on-site golf course is required.
As one is not planned or possible, the conditional use petition
must be denied. The developer would still have the option of building
a conventional hotel on the property.
Conservation and coastal management element policy 12.2.2 of
the growth management plan expressly limits all new residential
development maximum of four dwelling units per acre within the
coastal high hazard area. No exceptions are made for density bonuses,
transfers of development rights, or other planning mechanisms for
increasing a site's allowable density.
As the Wiggins Pass Marina site is located within the coastal
high hazard area, the four units per acre density limit applies. The
proposed condominium towers have a density of 9.48 units per acre.
F or that reason, the rezone petition must be denied.
Page 180
March 22-23, 2005
What I'm asking you today is to follow the law, something that
all of us should do, but especially elected officials. Do the right thing,
do the legal thing, and deny both these petitions.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: John Findley. He'll be followed by Linda Roosa.
MR. FINDLEY: Good afternoon. My name's John Findley. I'm
a certified marina manager, and I'm a member of the Southwest
Florida Marine Trades Association and the Collier County Trades
Association, Marine Trades Association.
I guess I'm representing a little bit of another group than what
you've heard here today. But one of the major concerns that this
county faces is trailer boat parking. This proj ect, from residential,
does offer excellent mitigation to help critical problems facing the
county .
At a recent commission meeting for planning, they had the
Goodland hearing, and we added -- it was recommended to add 50
more spaces for that trailer facility, which will help the county at this
time. It was reduced from 75 to 50.
And there's national studies that you should have that Marla
Ramsey referred to that you should have 75 parking spaces to handle a
two-ramp facility.
The current Cocohatchee River Park and marina facility has 58.
There is over -- right now there's 22,000 registered -- excuse me --
there's 22,000 registered boaters in Collier County.
In a recent study that was quoted in the News Press, there's
12,000 trailer boaters in Collier County. That's over 50 percent of
your boaters. Right now you have 124 trailer and car parking spaces.
That accommodates 1.03 percent of the population.
If you are a boater and you live in Golden Gate and you try to get
your kids together, you've got to leave at 5:30 to get down there and
find a parking space. This will give you 29 more parking spaces, the
mitigation that's offered by this developer. It should be precedence
Page 181
March 22-23,2005
that maybe you go after all developers to offer these kinds of things
that benefit the community.
But Joseph Schmitt with your planning -- with the community
development/ environmental services, at that hearing for Goodland,
said this is one of the most critical issues facing the county at this time
is trailer boat parking.
We need these spaces. They're offering another million dollars
for the parking across -- for additional parking across the street. But
just the 29 spaces, that adds five -- or that adds 10,585 more parking
spaces over a year. That's 12,000 parking spaces.
I spoke to the previous marina manager at the other marina, only
about 70 percent of those people were from Collier County . Yes, and
being from the marine industry, we hate to see marinas go away, but it
accommodated about 450. It was a pay for service, private facility,
and it was private.
Unfortunately, as to the guidelines, there's been a lot of
argument. But all marinas are private facilities that are paid-for
services. The fact of the matter is though, this will give to the public
that live in the surrounding areas.
Commissioner Halas, I had the pleasure of listening to you at the
boating access conference on South Seas on November, I believe it
was 5th or 6th of 2003. And you stated at that -- to a group out in the
lobby at that time that you went door to door lobbying to save the
marina. I commend you for that.
But you also said something that's very important, and it was in
your own words, and I quote you. You said that you were amazed
how many people in the immediate neighborhoods didn't know the
marina was going away or even cared the marina was going away
because they kept their boats in their yards. Those are the people that
are going to benefit from this in the community.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, Mr. Findley, you are a marina
expert, but you're also the marine person that -- manager of the marina
Page 182
March 22-23, 2005
at the Pelican Isle Yacht Club; is that correct?
MR. FINDLEY: That is correct, yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you a lobbyist then? Who
pays your bills?
MR. FINDLEY: Actually the board members. The club is
owned by the membership, and I work for the membership of that
club.
But I'm looking out for the marine industry as a whole. It
benefits the community. I see the boaters that get tickets up and down
the roads because there's not enough trailer parking up and down the
road. I deal and I'm active with the marine industry, past commander
of the Sanibel/Captiva Power Squadron in teaching the boating
industry, and I've been teaching safe boating for 25 years. This is a
critical issue that cannot be --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to correct you. I don't
know what -- I think what you heard me say at that conference was
that -- I said that people were very shocked that the marina was
closing, and it was in no way -- they were concerned that it was
closing and, of course, there was a lot of people that parked their boats
in the back yard. But the people that were concerned that it was
closing were people that use that marina when I went door to door, sir.
I just want to clarify that.
MR. FINDLEY: And I was commending you on that from the
marine industry standpoint.
But in closing, I fee1-- and once, again, something you stated,
nothing outweighs the 450 slips that are going away. I really truly
believe the 12,000 trailer boaters in Collier County that only have
parking spaces for one percent of them at this time are going to benefit
from this proj ect.
And the one other comment is, the bridge that goes over the river,
you could use another million dollar for that proj ect. At your town
hall meeting, that is a critical issue from the traffic standpoint.
Page 183
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to need to wrap it up.
Thank you very much.
MR. FINDLEY: All right. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Linda Roosa. She'll be
followed by Felix Jarczyk.
MS. ROOSA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. And my name is
Linda Roosa, and I live at Barefoot Beach, and I am here to represent
the concerned citizens or residents, excuse me -- Concerned Residents
of North Naples.
I've already had one gentleman defer his time to me, and I know
there's several more that would be willing to defer their time if that's
permissible, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got, right now, five minutes.
MS. ROOSA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. ROOSA: Okay. I stand before you because I'm presenting
2,447, five more came in this afternoon, petitions from residents of
North Naples. These have been signed, and these are to be added to
your record, please.
Concerned Residents of North Naples began work just a very
short six weeks ago. We mailed out 7,292 petitions to the 34110 and
the 34124 zip codes because these are the zip codes that surround our
community. That's a huge return, as you can see, from the number
that we sent out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I didn't think they had that many
residents.
MS. ROOSA: The petition was very clear, it was residential.
Are you in favor of residential rezoning, and that many came back.
Wouldn't you like to have that kind of return from a business?
Weare a grass-roots organization working together to let the
residents of N orth Naples know about the decision that you will be
making concerning our neighborhood. Some folks have been passing
Page 184
March 22-23, 2005
out petition sheets throughout their neighborhoods. Folks have been
sticking labels and sealing tabs on petitions, some have been even
hand-writing some of the petitions so that they could go out.
We've also had the residents who returned these, some came
through the website that we created. The vast, vast majority came
from people who put their own 37 cents on that petition and mailed it
back.
We've spent a tremendous amount of time checking and
rechecking to make sure that we are not presenting duplicates.
Concerned Residents of North Naples -- of North Naples, excuse
me, is the only group that has polled the residents in that immediate
community. The community sentiment is very strong, as you can see.
We do not want any type of commercial zoning in our neighborhood.
Vanderbilt Drive is not a commercial corridor. Commercial
belongs only on commercial corridors, and our commercial corridors
are very close at hand. They're one thoroughfare away, and we have
all the access to commercial that we need.
The reason that we were formed is because it became clear that
the leadership of the North Bay Civic Association was not fairly
representing the people because they were not polling the people for
their opinions.
We were present at the straw poll vote where their leadership
overturned their first vote which was in a majority that wanted
residential, yet that board overruled it and then went to voting for a
hotel. Since then they keep changing their position.
Again, we are the only organization which has polled the
residents, and our poll is current. And we continue to receive every
day. I got an e-mail last night from a gentleman. It came in late. I
didn't pick it up until the early morning hours when I was up. I mean,
this is coming in constantly.
The vacated Wiggins Pass property has been a private marina,
and the water access was limited to only those who could afford to pay
Page 185
March 22-23, 2005
the storage prices. We believe that that was not true public access. It
was only for those that could afford to pay the storage price or pay to
go and rent a boat.
The hotel zoning will only provide three designated public
transient public docks for use. The shopping center, none. We surely
don't think that equates into public access.
Planning board member Mr. Abernathy and Commissioner Halas
have both stated that the amenities are a bribe, that -- the amenities
that are being offered. We believe the contributions of 50 more
parking spaces, a million dollars, you've heard it all -- the one that I
don't think has been clearly stated though is the realignment of the
traffic in and out of the Cocohatchee River Park to the existing
Wiggins Pass traffic light. That will make it safer for our people
coming in and out of Cocohatchee. And that's very important.
Plus, I don't think it's really been clearly stated that that extra
million dollars that is being offered is for beach public access in our
community .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to wrap it up pretty quickly.
MS. ROOSA: All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Chairman, could you be more
specific on who this Concerned Residents of North Naples is? I mean,
who's your president? Do you have a president?
MS. ROOSA: My president is Jim Owens. I am vice president,
and I am the spokesperson, Mr. Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have any other affiliations?
MS. ROOSA: Yes, I do have affiliations. We have a boat slip at
Pelican Isle Yacht Club, we are also members of the U seppa Island
Club, but this is beyond club membership. This is a community issue.
It has nothing to do with where I live, except for in Collier County,
what clubs or organizations I belong to, because I do belong to the
ECA as well. This is a community --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Something else --
Page 186
March 22-23,2005
MS. ROOSA: -- issue, community.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I happen to see that you belong to
the Pelican Isle Yacht Club --
MS. ROOSA: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and that Ed Oelschlaeger is
obviously the president, and then right underneath is Linda Roosa.
MS. ROOSA: I am --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then it goes on and it says --
well, this is the officers and directors and then --
MS. ROOSA: I am an officer of the Pelican Isle Yacht Club.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Linda Oelschlaeger and Bill
Pittman.
MS. ROOSA: I am not Linda Oelschlaeger. I am Linda Roosa.
I am a member.
Mr. Halas, let's get back to the point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you are a member of -- you
are a director of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it time for a break, Mr.
Chairman?
MS. ROOSA: I am not a director.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will be pretty shortly. You know,
there's no point in getting in an argument with public speakers.
MS. ROOSA: No. I am not. And this is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're entitled to speak.
MS. ROOSA: Right, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So please wrap it up though.
MS. ROOSA: Okay. This is a community issue and it has
nothing to do with where I live, where I work, what organizations I am
involved with.
We want the concerned residents, all of them, want and need the
additional public parking spaces for our boaters and park visitors. We
want and need the safer entrance and exit to the Cocohatchee River
Page 187
March 22-23, 2005
Park. We want and need that boat dock for -- to improve public
access to Barefoot Beach.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's got to go very quickly now, Ms.
Roosa.
MS. ROOSA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, you've had a lot more than five
minutes here.
MS. ROOSA: Well, I got waylaid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know. But you want us to support
residential, is that it?
MS. ROOSA: Absolutely, because we have a vision of
Vanderbilt Drive, and that is to keep it residential and to blend that
Cocohatchee Park --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I got the point. We got it.
MS. ROOSA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Felix Jarczyk.
MR. JARCZYK: Felix Jarczyk, 10310 Gulfshore Drive,
Vanderbilt Beach --
MS. FILSON: Can I just take one second to call Eugene Foster
up.
MR. JARCZYK: Sorry. Am I free to speak here or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, by all means. Go ahead.
MR. JARCZYK: Do I have to state all the organizations I belong
to?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you just speak.
MR. JARCZYK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The only thing we want to know from
any speaker is whether or not you're a paid lobbyist. If you're a paid --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That I am not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you're a paid lobbyist, you've got to
register and pay a fee here; otherwise, you can speak, not as long as
Page 188
March 22-23, 2005
you like, but you can speak on any topic you like, okay?
MR. JARCZYK: I'll be brief. As you can see, I'm for
residential.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that conclude your presentation?
MR. JARCZYK: I'm confused about the laws being stated to
you gentlemen. I'm just a layman here, but I heard earlier from staff
and the county attorney that as a board you could approve in this
particular coastal area from C -- from commercial to residential 16
units per acre; is that correct? You could go that high?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what staffs opinion is and what
our attorney's opinion is.
MR. JARCZYK: Yet the other people who have spoken are
saying that you cannot by law go over four point something. So that's
not true then, what they've been saying?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Somebody is not telling the truth.
MR. JARCZYK: Okay. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. JARCZYK: I'll be brief then. Given the fact that this
property is going to be developed in some fashion, whether it's
residential or hotel, condos hotel, or commercial, and given the
condition of the traffic and Collier County as it exists today, traffic is
a major issue for this particular spot, because if it's left to be
commercial, you saw the numbers yourself, over 7,000 passings a day.
That's just an awful lot for Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive,
so I would urge you to vote for residential condo development. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Eugene Foster. He'll be
followed by Peter Franch.
MR. FOSTER: My name is Eugene Foster, and I'm not here to
give you any challenges or free legal advice --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excuse me, sir, can we take a recess for
Page 189
March 22-23, 2005
a few minutes? We only have three commissioners. This vote is
going to take four. There's no point in continuing the proceeding until
we get the other commissioner back in here. Okay? So if you -- why
don't we just take a break now. We were scheduled for one at 4:30.
We'll take one now. We'll be back here at 4:30. Okay.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have 17 speakers left. Are you
ready for me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm ready to resume with the public
speakers. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next speaker is Eugene Foster. He'll
be followed by Peter Franch.
MR. FOSTER: My name is Eugene Foster. I'm not a paid
political lobbyist. I would like to make a point.
First of all, you're talking about the hurricane evacuation. In the
2004 hurricane season, I was the Pelican Isle Yacht Club hurricane
coordinator. On average we had never had more than 50 percent at
Pelican Isle at anyone time. So max percentage is 50 percentage of
the folks.
Before the hurricane season, when the first named hurricane was
announced, we went down to less than 10 percent, so that probably is
a figure that you could use for those.
I'm not here to challenge you. I'm not here to give you free legal
advice, which I'm sure you're happy about. I'm not here to lecture
you. And I do trust all five of you to make good decisions.
I have a couple prayers. One is that you as our elected county
commissioners will vote on the issues and on their merits in a logical,
rational, ethical manner. Basically I'm just asking you to be good, fair
commISSIoners.
Next I would pray that our county commission will provide --
Page 190
March 22-23, 2005
you, our elected commissions, will well research specific and correct
legal advice. You've heard a whole bunch of legal opinions today. I
don't know how valuable they are. I guess I would trust the county
attorney here more than some of the other people that we've heard.
I'd like to have them get that advice to you well before the
commission's vote on this so as to minimize the potential for
additional taxpayer burden that may be caused by a commission vote
that could be overturned by an appeal to our judicial systems at
potentially great expense to us as taxpayers.
I would then ask that both sides of the very complex issue will
forgive their opposition for some of the not so wonderful things that
have been said. For the laughing at us as we're speaking. It's just
really not good. And I'm looking here, it says, respect is the
cornerstone of dialogue. We've not had all that today, and I would ask
that we continue looking at this. You see it right in front of you here.
Thank you for listening to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Peter Franch. He'll be
followed by Tim Rowe.
MR. FRANCH: My name is Peter Franch, and I live at 425
Dockside Drive, right next to the subject property. For the record, I
am a member of the North Bay Civic Association, and for the record, I
want you to know that the North Bay Civic Association does not
represent me and my views.
I want to tell you a little story. I wrote a letter because I felt
something needed to be said, and because of my letter, I was thrown in
with other people that we were a bunch ofNIMBIs. And since English
is not my original language, I didn't know what it was. Was I being
called names? Was it bad? Was it good?
So I looked it up. And I'll read to you what it says. A NIMBI is
someone who objects to something unpleasant or dangerous being
located near his or her home. And guess what? That's right on,
Page 191
March 22-23, 2005
because a commercial development would be something unpleasant at
best, and possibly even dangerous.
And then it goes on to say, but is perfectly happy to see it located
elsewhere, and that is not the case. I wouldn't want a commercial
development in your neighborhood, neither one of us want that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd want it.
MR. FRANCH: With that, thank you very much for your vote
for residential. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tim Rowe. He'll be followed
by -- and I hope I don't mess this one up -- Malika Anagnostopoulos.
I know I messed that one up.
MR. ROWE: Thank you very much for your time, I just wanted
to bring --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Name, sir?
MR. ROWE: Tim Rowe. Just on a very simple side, I'm new to
the area, and I live in Commissioner Henning's district out at 951 and
Indigo Lakes. There's a tremendous amount of construction going on
right now, and the residents are feeling a lot of pressure with the
traffic out there.
The quarry is coming in, Heritage Bay, I believe, it's called. I
don't object to that. I moved here understanding it's a beautiful place
and more people are going to come to this area to live. Development
is inevitable. And as the county commissioners, with, I think solid
backing from your legal team and staff, we want to pick and choose
developers that have the same vision for the quality of our
environment as we do.
I think that this developer has displayed that. And the battle
seems to go on and on, and it seems -- it's very confusing from my
perspective. I haven't been here that long. Because what was once an
ugly pollution-ridden marina could soon be a beautiful 95-unit
two-tower place with additional parking for trailers, with additional
money to do some nice things, and that seems fairly simple, and that's
Page 192
March 22-23, 2005
why I don't understand what's going on.
And I hope that you will support residential so we can convert a
real eyesore and we can clean up the soil and have some good things
happen.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Malika. She'll be followed by
Emory Waldrip.
MS. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS: My name is Malika Sesi
Anagnostopoulos. I hope you can pronounce it correctly. I'll give you
anA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember you.
MS. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS: My husband and I reside at 435
Dockside Drive which is next to the property in question.
Please remember that the property we're talking about is within a
shouting distance from my living room. Today if I shout only other
residents will hear me. Suddenly people who live away and beyond
the shouting distance from this property want to put a hotel or even a
strip mall next to me. Why should they care? Whatever goes there is
not within a shouting distance from their living room.
I hope you have heard the voice of reason to vote yes to this
beautiful, useful, tax-generating and more residential property. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Emory Waldrip. He'll be
followed by Sylvia Neal.
MR. WALDRIP: My name is Emory Waldrip. And many of the
points I was going to make have already been made, but I do want to
make two.
I've heard a number of individuals speak today stating that they
were members of a board of directors of an organization with so many
members, and I've heard them go on then to make points as if they
were representing the will of the majority of the people of the
organization that they supposedly represent.
Page 193
March 22-23,2005
And I want to point out to you, if you think back there have been
very few people who have had the ability to stand here representing a
point of view that was majority of their members.
Secondly, as I look at this stack of petitions here and look with
this probably four weeks old grass-roots organization of people that do
not want to see a residential area go in a commercial direction have
gone out and polled people, took the risk of make -- mailing and see
what we get, and to see in a short period of time 2,400 plus people,
people, in the community limited to those zip codes are stating they
want to see this be residential.
Development is going to happen on waterfront property. So to
talk about and think that there's something else in the cards is naive at
best. And when you look at the development options, there's a large,
large number of people apparently in the community that want this
area maintained as residential.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Silvia Neal. She'll be followed by John
Lawrence.
MS. NEAL: My name's Silvia Neal. I live at Pelican Isle Yacht
Club. My thoughts have been expressed by many. I'd like to urge you
to vote for the residential development. And if possible, I would like
to cede my time to Rita Reuss, who will be speaking following me.
MS. FILSON: John Lawrence. He'll be followed by John
Kindsvater.
MR. LAWRENCE: Commissioners, thank you for your patience
in this long, long session.
I support the residential proj ect here as been described for a
couple of reasons. Number one is that when we first came down
Vanderbilt Drive over 20 years ago, it was a lot of empty land and you
found a couple of commercial developments up in Lee County near
Bonita Beach Road, yes, and they're still there.
If you go further south, in spite of whatever the zoning is, I don't
Page 194
March 22-23, 2005
see anything other than residential all the way down to the road,
Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's all residential, and I think this fits in with
the rest of the complex.
The other thing I would like to tell you is that my wife and I
living at Pelican Isle are only here five months, so we won't be here
during the hurricane, believe me that. We will not be here. Scratch
two from your concern there.
I would like you to think, too, that this residential is solving, or
not really solving, but is helping to provide more parking spaces for
trailers and the boating public who go on trailers. I've worked on this
in Michigan in the past. It's a big need. I encourage you, again, for
residential. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: John Kindsvater. He'll be followed by Jim
Owens.
MR. KINDSV ATER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm John
Kindsvater. I live at 425 Dockside Drive, and I thank you for the
opportunity to address you on this emotionally charged, as you well
know, and very complex issue.
Unfortunately sometimes this is getting cast too much as a have
versus have not issue, and I think we need to get beyond that and deal
with the opportunities that you have and the opportunities that you
don't have in your vote today.
You don't have the opportunity to bring back the marina. The
operator of the marina let the lease expire, the owner of the property
has given it for development, and this marina is gone.
You also don't have the opportunity today, unless have you tens
of millions of dollars from the county to turn it into a real public
access place, which I have to admit would be wonderful. It would be
great if the county could take that and operate it as good public access
to the waterways. I don't see that in the budget, and I don't think you
do as well.
Page 195
March 22-23, 2005
So as a result, you have to face the opportunities you do have,
and one of them is to vote for the right zoning for this property and
you have to look into your heart and see what's right for the property.
You've seen the facts presented.
You have the opportunity to rezone this property into
conformance with your comprehensive plan. And although there's
been a lot of arguing about it, the comprehensive plan is pretty clear as
to what this can have.
You also have an opportunity that most public officials would
love to have, and that is the chance, at one hand, to zone the property
for its highest and best use, and at the other hand, to have money
available to spend on public access that can really bring people to the
water much more than any standard commercial C-4 opportunity or
building would bring.
So please take advantage of these opportunities that you have to
vote for the rezoning to residential.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Jim Owens. He'll be followed by Rita Reuss.
MR. OWENS: My name, for the record, is Jim Owens, Sr.
Thank you for this time to present my views.
I've been a permanent resident for eight years living next door to
the vacated Wiggins Marina property. Recently, within the past six
weeks, 2,442 plus residents of North Naples signed and submitted a
petition supporting the down zoning of the vacated Wiggins Marina
property to residential.
I would like to make just a few comments to a couple of quotes
from county officials. I quote Collier County Commissioner Halas
from his December 2003 commentary. Quote, the community must
speak and the government must listen. This is the way democracy is
supposed to work, unquote. Commissioner Halas, this is a perfect
example of the community speaking.
I also quote Jeff Klatzkow, the assistant Collier County attorney,
Page 196
March 22-23, 2005
as printed in the February 26, 2005 edition of the News Press.
Attorney Jeff Klatzkow stated, quote, Commissioners take residents'
opinion into account when making decisions. I think the Board of
County Commissioners is very much concerned about the concerns in
the community. Mr. K1atzkow continued, this is very much local
government.
Commissioners, please listen to the concerns of the residents in
the community where the property is located. Thank you. V ote in
favor of residential.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Rita Reuss. She'll be followed by Ronald Reuss.
MS. REUSS: Good afternoon. I'll speak for my husband and say
he doesn't have to talk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. How long do you intend
to talk?
MS. REUSS: I hope I don't go over the three minutes, but if I do,
Silvia Neal ceded me some of her time, and I would not want to go
beyond five.
I'm president of the master association of Pelican Isle area and
also vice-president of the board of directors of the homeowners'
association.
I have a stack here. My stack is smaller, but it is signed petitions
representing a poll of the homeowners of Pelican Isle. Ninety-five
percent of -- over 95 percent of those folks requested this commission
vote residential. I'm going to add them to the stack over there when I
finish so you have them for the record. I also gave them to each
commissioner earlier.
One person voted do nothing, and two people voted for hotel
only. Do nothing, I hope, is not something that this group is really
considering to do.
The opposition spoke of three issues that impressed me as I was
listening, and the first one that hit me was that North Naples is a
Page 197
March 22-23, 2005
beautiful area, and North Naples is a beautiful area.
I also got the impression that the site we're talking about is a
beautiful area. That is not true. The site we're talking about is vacant,
it's barricaded with barbed wire, it's overgrown, it's been damaged by
the hurricane, and the worst issue is, is that it is still leaching toxic
waste into the soil because of its many years of use as a marina. That
needs to be cleaned up, and doing nothing is not going to solve that
problem.
We need to move forward. This is an old proj ect. We're all
getting tired of it. It's been 13 months since we started talking about
this that I know of, and I'm sure before that.
So I think that we need to come to a conclusion on this. And,
again, I don't think doing -- that if we do nothing, we are in a sad
shape.
The site we're talking about is private property, and the owner's
property rights needs to be recognized as we did this. We also need to
recognize balancing of interests.
So what can this commission look at? My head's spinning from
all the opinions of legal opinions and everything else that you've heard
today, and I think the issue before you is to resolve what is best for the
community, two communities, the immediate neighboring community
and the community in general. And what do have you before you on
those two issues?
The immediate area is all, as you've heard over and over again,
residential, numerous buildings that are taller than the ones under
consideration. It is compatible with the neighborhood. The
immediate neighborhood, all of the petitions request residential.
Let's go then to what you can do for the community. Jack
Kindsvater talked about it. You have $2 million to work with. You
have boat ramps. The old marina offered no -- I'm sorry, not boat
ramps, boat parking spaces, trailer parking spaces. The old marina did
not provide any of that. Thank you.
Page 198
March 22-23, 2005
The old marina did not provide any of those resources for trailer
parking. Also, the public -- the county gas dock has in the past year
rented spaces for -- rented pontoon boats, so there is access for rental
boats, and it can be done there.
In addition, there are numerous boat clubs that have been
developed, freedom boat clubs, all around, plus others that provide
boat access.
So we ask you to seriously consider the character of the
neighborhood when you're ruling on this, that you allow the Coconilla
project to move forward and maintain the residential character of the
neighborhood. It will enhance the beauty and value of the
neighborhood area for those walking, biking, driving, and boating in
the area.
It's used by many people in the community, and there is a park
nearby, that you need to consider the safety issues when you're
deciding this and what provides the best safety for the area, and I think
that's residential. That park's used by a lot of kids from a lot of the
communities for parties and reunions, et cetera.
So I thank you for the time. I wish you good deliberations, and
I'll add my stack to the other stack.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Bob Cassens. He'll be followed by Jeanne Heller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is Jeanne Heller here?
(No response.)
MR. CASSENS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, participants in
this hearing. It's my pleasure to be here. My name is Bob Cassens.
I wrote what I thought was a very good, well-documented logical
speech, but I'm not going to give it. I'm going to attempt to relate to
you a personal experience I had as a way of making a point.
I was a practicing biochemist at the University of Wisconsin for
33 years. And during the 1970s I got thrown into the food safety
Page 199
March 22-23, 2005
controversy, that meant I was going against the Ralph N aders and the
Michael Jacobsons and those sort of people, and they became known
as activists. Those activists, let me assure you, had a shopping list for
an agenda.
The issues that they wanted to attack changed continuously.
Scientific documentation of statements they made never happened. It
reminds me very strangely of the opposition that I'm facing here
today.
What really is the agenda for destroying a neighborhood, a
residential neighborhood, increasing an already intolerable amount of
traffic, producing more environmental problems and limiting further
access to our beaches?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Jeanne Heller?
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: Tom Andes. He'll be followed by Louise Franch.
MR. ANDES: For the record, my name is Tom Andes. I reside
at 1746 Persimmon Court, which is in Pelican Marsh in Naples.
Many of the points that I wanted to make, obviously, have
already been made, and per the suggestion of the commission and
chairman to efficiently utilize our time, and certainly in strong
support, strong support, for residential rezoning, I'd yield my time.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for your
consideration.
MS. FILSON: Louise Franch. She'll be followed by Suzanne
Ring.
MS. FRANCH: I'm Louise Franch, and I also live at Pelican Isle
Yacht Club, and I'd like to call for the question. Can anybody do that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you a NIMBI?
MS. FRANCH: No, I'm not a NIMBI. Vote yes for residential,
but I would like to call the question. Can we get this over with? Are
Page 200
March 22-23, 2005
you on my side to get this over with, to get this over with?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm on your side to get it over with --
MS. FRANCH: I have heard these --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- but we've got to listen to the other
people.
MS. FRANCH: I understand that, but I've heard the same thing
many, many, many times, every Planning Commission, every County
Commission meeting. I've heard it, you know, and I think you have,
too. So I wish you good luck and I pray that you will vote residential.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just made the observation to someone
during the break that I have not heard a single new fact all day long.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Susan Ring. She'll be
followed by Bowen Broock.
MS. RING: My name is Suzanne Ring. I live at 425 Dockside
Drive, and I guess I don't want to repeat all that's been said today. But
there is a couple -- there is one item that had been mentioned a couple
of times but it has never really been elaborated on, and that is the
noise that will come from any kind of commercial venture. No matter
what it is, we're going to have the noise.
I remember hearing the noise, not that it was all that bad, but
hearing the noise when they were paging people over there when the
marina was there. But the noise will be there. And if you are aware
of how water carries noise, we'll hear noise.
So I'm going to tell you a story instead of repeating any of these
other items that have been repeated day after day after day.
The other day -- and we're talking about how environmentally
sensitive this area is and that residential would be a better approach for
the marine environment, and it has been -- become better.
My husband, for the first time -- and we live there year-round for
the last seven years, and he's always watching out the window to see if
anybody's finding any fish when he's not fishing.
Page 201
March 22-23, 2005
But he saw a dolphin jumping so high -- and he's only seen it
when he's been out far at sea, and he actually saw a dolphin jumping
high. And I was on the phone with him at the office at the time. And
it didn't jump just once, and it didn't jump just twice, it jumped three
times out of the water, and he was totally amazed.
And I thought, you know what, I wonder if that dolphin has ESP
and he found out that the commissioners were going to vote in favor
of residential rezone.
MR. FILSON: The next speaker--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The dolphin was jumping because he
was trying to get out of that polluted water.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bowen Broock, and your
final speaker is Tom Gardella. Bowen Broock?
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: Tom Gardella?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Quick before he changes his mind. Let's
turn this off.
MR. GARDELLA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Which one are you?
MR. GARDELLA: Tom Gardella.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Hey, Tom, I think you've got to swear in.
MR. GARDELLA: Oh, yes, and I do have to -- thank you for
reminding me. I do have to swear in.
(The speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. GARDELLA: Okay. We ready? Thank you,
Commissioners, for letting me voice my opinion today. My name is
Tom Gardella. I live in Bonita Shores, Collier County, just north of
the Wiggins Pass site. I have lived there for 12 years with my wife
and four children. I also own two small businesses in the area.
I do travel Vanderbilt Drive every day, winter, spring, summer,
and fall. I'm there year-round. This is my home. I do care about my
Page 202
March 22-23, 2005
community. I plan to be sticking around.
I am against the rezone -- residential rezone. I'm not going to get
into all the reasons why because they've been stated, but I would like
to point out just a couple things I would like to clarify, and I do have a
new idea at the end for you, okay?
There's a misconception of Vanderbilt Drive. I live off of
Vanderbilt Drive. It certainly is not a purely residential street, okay?
It has had and still does have many commercial sites along -- long
before most of us moved here, and many of the homes in these
commercial sites were there before many of the homes were built,
okay?
From Bonita Beach Road heading south for about the first half
mile, Vanderbilt Drive is lined with commercial. We have a bank,
office parks, dentist offices, barber shops -- you can't hear me, I'm
sorry, okay -- and, of course, the Royal Scoop. I'm sure we've all
enjoyed ice cream there. So commercial can be yummy, you know,
also.
Then we move about another mile and a half south to Wiggins
and Vanderbilt Drive. We have a marina, which was this very piece
of commercial waterfront property, a marina, that happened to be the
very reason many of us moved to the area. It was a commercial area,
a commercial piece of property.
You also have a public park, county launching facility with a
small marine store, a lot across the street zoned commercial, so there
is a commercial area right there, and it has always been there since
I've lived here.
So it is a little bit of a mystery to me why one would invest in a
home very close to a commercial section and then complain about this
commercial section. It's been there. It didn't just pop up.
So by keeping this commercial, you're not adding any
commercial, you're just -- you're just keeping what was there. So I
just want to establish, there is commercial on Vanderbilt Drive. I
Page 203
March 22-23, 2005
drive it every day.
There's one thing quickly I'd like to get off my chest, and then I
have a suggestion, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have one minute.
MR. GARDELLA: One minute? Okay. Well, here, I'll give you
a suggestion, okay. If you decide to rezone this commercial
waterfront to residential, I do think about the future, that it won't be
long before the residents surrounding this park and boat launching
facility will gang up on the county and say that these do not belong
there.
I would suggest maybe you sell the park and the launch facility
to Eco Group and Pelican Isle, okay, take the millions of dollars,
create a large boat ramp facility, public slips and a restaurant on the
bay side of Barefoot Beach, ask the concerned residents of North
Naples' grass-roots organization, because they have graciously
welcomed more visitors to the park, and North Bay Civic Association,
who has been trying to save all of the county citizens more waterfront
access, the task of putting this together, and maybe we could all live
happily together if they do something like that. There's a suggestion.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. GARDELLA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many people agree with that?
MR. GARDELLA: Just a thought.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, sir. Your name?
MR. LEONARD: My name is Tom Leonard. I was asked to
speak on behalf of the Barefoot Beach Preserve to the commissioners,
and a group of over 400 members whose purpose since 1990 is to
work as partners to the county of parks and recreation to preserve,
protect, and enhance the natural environment. This might be the one
thing you have heard something new. They don't want the money.
We regret being unable to attend your important meeting today
Page 204
March 22-23, 2005
on the March 22nd, so I wish to make our thoughts and concerns
known to you as stated below. Weare most concerned by the line
item of the Coconilla developer proposal offering $1 million financing
to Collier County for the creation of a boat launching dock in the
matter that constitutes the eastern waters of the preserve.
Specifically, creating boat access through the mangroves, which
are an integral part of the preserve's 342 acres, is not possible without
significantly dredging of the shallow waters, which is as little as one
to two feet deep.
Building a dock of sufficient size and strength to safely handle
conditioned use by groups of visitors will further disturb both the
preserve's backwaters, specifically, and the North Bay estuary,
generally.
And three, to allow visitors safe passage from the dock up to the
county bathhouse facilities, Friends Learning Center, and access to the
Gulf beaches requires a boardwalk approximately 1,000 feet long to
further destroy mangroves and the natural environment preserve.
These mangroves and backwaters, which comprise
approximately 80 percent of the preserve, are the guts of the
ecosystem and provide the food chain for the land and sea wildlife that
inhabit the North Bay area.
To upset this balance is to defeat the whole purpose of the work
of your predecessors at both the county and state level, which has
visions to acquire the preserve, these lands and waters, in the first
place, to keep a few acres out of the hands of further development.
Finally, additional visitors arriving by water will further add to
the crowds already exceeding capacity limits laid out by any previous
land management plan, which you might review. We're currently
operating without the benefit of an updated plan.
Seasonal traffic has reached a dangerous level affecting not only
beach population but impacting the safety and wildlife habitat,
especially that of the land tortoise.
Page 205
March 22-23, 2005
The final point to remember is that Barefoot is more than a
county park. It's a county and state preserve, one of the last along the
coast, and should be kept as such for the public enjoyment; therefore,
if you're not going to go with the hotel, which the million dollars is not
offered and you do go with the residential, which the million dollars is
offered, Barefoot Beach Preserve Association is against that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: I didn't have a speaker slip for him, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Was he sworn in? Sir?
MR. LEONARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we swear him in after the fact?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just don't take that into
consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. Instruct the jury to
disregard that testimony.
MR. MUDD: That was the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that was the last speaker.
MS. FILSON: The one before that was the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have a very, very brief rebuttal, and
I have told the attorney that -- who spoke earlier that if you brought up
any new information that he would have a chance to rebut it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't intend to bring up any new
information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's consistent with everything
else we've heard today.
(Applause.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Unfortunately -- unfortunately I had to
create the record.
I do just want to quickly speak to a couple of issues, and then
Page 206
March 22-23,2005
we'll move on. I want to point out that, first of all, your EAC
recommended approval of both projects. So from an environmental
standpoint, your EAC is on board with either alternative you choose,
or if you choose neither.
We need to make it clear, and a lot of the speakers have said, the
marina's gone, the 450 dry slips, they're gone, the 52, quote, public --
and we don't agree they're public -- wet slips, they're gone.
I don't know what public water access is left for the community if
we go to straight -- stay with the straight C-4 zoning. If we do some
type of a shopping center like the Venetian Village, the only public
access is going to be to look at it, to look at the water. You're not
going to use the water if you stay with straight C-4.
The residential alternative provides the most public access to the
water. I mean the use of the water when I say that. We have agreed to
convey property to the county that will enable the county to increase
boat parking, trailer parking up to 29 spaces, and regular car parking
up to 20 spaces.
We've agreed to donate a million dollars to buy boat trailer
parking for people to actually get the use of the water. We've agreed
to allow -- donate a million dollars for beach access. If the county
decides they don't want to do the dock to Barefoot Beach, they can use
the million dollars for beach access however the county sees fit.
I think what's interesting, in all the testimony -- you heard a
couple of times the threats that they're going to sue you if you approve
this, which is fine. You know, your county attorney has already told
you that you can approve up to 16 units per acre, and that's legally
defensible, and you know, we'll be involved in that lawsuit, too, if that
happens.
There wasn't one public speaker that addressed any of the
substantive issues relating to a rezone. There was no testimony, lay or
otherwise, that contradicted your staff report, that contradicted our
experts. The competent substantial evidence supports either of the
Page 207
March 22-23, 2005
two petitions.
Obviously you've heard the people speak that they prefer the
residential. You have not heard anybody give any contradictory
testimony, that's an expert or otherwise, regarding the issues you're
supposed to be looking at when you have a rezone petition and a
conditional use petition.
I wanted to briefly point to a couple of things that Mr. Humiston
said in our testimony about the mangrove issue. We would like that
removed from the staff report regarding the mangroves. They're not
part of the flushing needed for the marina, so we would like that -- if
there's a motion to approve the residential, we would like that taken
out.
We would also like the draft restriction taken out because there is
no draft restriction. That's a design criteria. And if you're going to
impose that restriction on us, make sure you impose it on everybody
else who uses that pass. So if anybody else has more than a three-foot
draft, they can't use the pass either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't think that that is in the manatee
management plan, but we suggest that you go with the design and you
follow what the Corps of Engineers said. There is no draft restriction.
The -- what we need to get to is on the destination resort hotel.
We have a very big issue on the destination resort hotel.
If we're not -- if you all don't determine that we are a destination
resort hotel, we're not interested in that petition being considered
because we can't make a go of it as a regular hotel. We don't want a
conditional use for a regular hotel. That's not what we applied for. We
applied for a destination resort hotel. We believe we meet the
definition.
The operative language, and this is -- the operative language is
the language that says in all cases you need to have the following, and
that's the 25 percent requirement. That's the only time that that shows
Page 208
March 22-23, 2005
up as a requirement in the definition of destination resort hotel.
Also, Susan Murray presented this item to you and to the
Planning Commission when there was the discussion of the definition
of destination resort hotel, and not one time did she mention a golf
course was required. She only mentioned that you've got to meet the
25 percent requirement. She never mentioned that -- in the definition
of destination resort hotel that you had to have a golf course.
So we don't agree with that, and if you do decide we need to have
a golf course, I think it's clear that there is no definition of golf course
in your land development code, therefore a miniature golf course
would qualify, and we would respectfully request if the board is
inclined to go forward with the conditional use, that you make a
determination for us that, yes, that meets the definition or, no, we
don't, because, again, we're not interested in a conditional use for
something we didn't apply for.
Again, on that petition, we would also like the mangrove
requirement removed and the draft restrictions removed.
I think I've hit all the highlights about what we need to -- wanted
to address in the rebuttal. With that, I don't think I brought up
anything new, and we would request that you vote in favor of the
residential PUD.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The opposing counsel believes you did
bring up something new. I'm going to ask him to tell us what it was.
MR. HYDE: Take about 30 seconds. Counsel has just suggested
to you -- William Hyde on behalf of the North Bay Civic Association,
Inc.
Counsel just suggested to you that there's no competent
substantial evidence to support our position. I would submit to you
the mere fact that this area is, without dispute in the record, located
within a coastal high hazard area and that your own comprehensive
plan limits density in a coastal high hazard area for residential uses to
four units per acre is more than sufficient, competent, substantial
Page 209
March 22-23, 2005
evidence for you to deny the residential rezoning petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Now, the -- Commissioners, is there any reason to keep the
public hearing open? Is there anything that you need from the public
or from the staff or the petitioner at this point in time?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I may have some questions for the
county attorney as we go on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can deal with that. Okay. Then I'm
going to close the public hearing.
Yes, and you have -- the staff has an opportunity for rebuttal also,
and what I am very, very interested in hearing, and I'm interested in
hearing not only from you but Mr. Weeks and from the county
attorney about whether the growth management plan does bind the
hands of the Collier County Commissioners with respect to density in
the high hazard area. I want a clear answer, yes or no. And if we
have flexibility, I want you to tell us that. Yes or no, okay? So you're
on.
MR. BOSI: Chairman Coyle, I will defer to David Weeks on
that. I would like to say that Susan Mason would like the opportunity
to clarify her position in terms of the drafting in the mangroves, which
was an issue that the applicant has taken exception to the staff
recommendation at the end, if the board would care to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we might get to that when we start
deciding on a motion. If the motion is to disapprove, who cares.
Okay, David.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, again, David Weeks of your
comprehensive planning staff. It is staffs position that you are not
limited to four units per acre of density in the coastal high hazard area,
that you have the flexibility, the discretion, as to what density, if any,
you want to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you also said in your earlier
testimony that DCA has no problem with us making those
Page 210
March 22-23, 2005
determinations. What does that really mean?
MR. WEEKS: I didn't state that, but they have, in fact, said that.
The issue had been raised in the past that the property being in the
coastal high hazard area should be limited in its density, and some
persons had actually contacted DCA and asked for them to weigh in
on this matter.
Our plan, comprehensive plan, was adopted in 1989. It contained
the language that we're dealing with today. It contained a density
rating system that allows density bonuses within the coastal high
hazard area, limited bonuses.
DCA found that comprehensive plan to be in compliance with
state statutes, therefore, the plan is in effect and that we're using it to
make decisions such as you're about to today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And David -- sir, you're not
recognized, okay? You're not recognized. You've had your say. The
public hearing is closed.
David, what's your take on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I stated earlier at this hearing, and
I'll state again, that Mr. Weeks is correct in that the -- applying a
review of all of the elements of the growth management plan, the
coastal management aspect, the capital improvement element, and the
FLUE, we find that, yes, the language is not as clear as is it should be
because they don't work well together, but the FLUE, the future land
use element, is the controlling aspect, and it would indicate, I would
opine, that the board has the flexibility to go from zero -- that is, they
don't have to grant any density -- to 16.
And I might add to the -- to this answer the fact that that would
be a consistent application of the staff over a period of many years and
a consistent application of the board over many years to the extent that
it has the prerogative and has exercised that prerogative with the same
provisions of our growth management plan and I dare say I expect
some of the -- some of the projects that are located even nearer to this
Page 211
March 22-23,2005
subj ect property.
Now, if it had the same applications of -- and interpretation of the
growth management plan applied -- because they're higher than four
units as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I finished my comment on this,
but Commissioner Fiala had asked to speak first. She punched her
button first. So Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We all know this is really
tough for us. What I'd really like to see is a public marina and a public
boat launch and public boat slips and fuel, public fuel and ship store,
but really that isn't on the table today. That would be the -- that would
be the dream of everybody, have every -- but that isn't -- that isn't
what it's all about today.
Today it's all about density. It's all about density, and we to be
careful of what kind of a precedent we set. And I've been trying to
think of what would be the best thing that we could do.
I want to tell you, I would never want a hotel built by me. I
wouldn't want -- I wouldn't want the music all night long, I wouldn't
want to -- you know, here I'm buying in a residential community and
all of a sudden, I've got a hotel coming with delivery trucks and so
forth. I wouldn't want to have that happen to me. I wouldn't want to
do that to anybody else.
But how can we work this out so everybody has to give a little bit
but so everybody wins? And I'm just throwing this out on the table
right now for consideration. And I say, possibly, because of the
coastal high hazard area, we want to keep -- we want to set a
precedent.
How about if make this hotel -- not a hotel. I'm sorry -- this
residential unit a four-unit per acre absolutely gorgeous residential
tower, but at 75 feet, then we've accomplished everything we want to
do. I don't think it should be commercial. I realize it's zoned
commercial. I haven't been able to determine yet how much traffic
Page 212
March 22-23, 2005
that would generate.
But I'm here to tell you, even if it was just 130 rooms, which is a
lot more than the original proposed 95 rooms, then you also have, in a
hotel setting, you also have all of the employees coming and going
every day. The traffic generated from a hotel versus a residential
facility is just horrendous; food deliveries, all of the noise, so -- but I
would like to see us stick to the coastal high hazard area as well.
So I'm just offering that on the table to see if anybody wants to
chew on it a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, were you next?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have some problems. I'm
not a lawyer. I wish I was in this case. But as I look over and look at
the three main elements that tie into the density issue, I start off, and I
look, and I see the capital improvement element, which is 1.3.2. And
it says basically, the FLUE limits new residential development to a
maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre within portions of the
coastal high hazard area.
Then I look down, and I look into the -- what is known as the
conservation coastal management element, and it's 12.1.2 of -- and it
says, land use amendments in a category one hurricane vulnerability
zone shall only be considered if such increases in density provide
appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts of hurricane evacuation time.
When I look down even farther and I look into the conservation
coastal management element, 12.2.2, it says again, the FLUE limits
new residential units of a maximum of four dwelling units per gross
acre within the coastal high hazard area.
I also have some concerns -- and it was brought up briefly -- in
that we've got all of this noise from commercial, we may have
somebody shouting or whatever, and that leads me to believe that we
may have some problems in the near future as this piece of property is
built, if we decide today to go residential, whereby there will be many
vehicles backing up with trailers making noise at six o'clock in the
Page 213
March 22-23, 2005
morning, because a lot of people like to go out fishing.
And the next thing I think we're going to see is where some
residents will come in here and say that we need to limit the hours or
limit what's going on there, and I have some really (sic) concerns. It's
like, not in my back yard.
The other things, when we limit this to residential as was brought
out, there will be no access to that basin because those units will be
specifically dedicated to the people who buy into that community.
Then it leads me on to another setting of this -- and I don't mean
to go on -- but in the course of the -- the person that was representing
the developer, said, we're going to give you $2 million. And I asked,
were you going to give us something if it's zoned commercial?
Because with commercial I think they said that there would be a
possibility of maybe a couple of charter boats there and maybe one or
two transient slips. And the answer was no.
And I have very strong concerns about that. I have strong ethics.
I think this is -- borders on contract zoning. We'll give you money for
this but we're not going to give you money for that. I have some very
deep concerns in regards to this.
I will give you 29 boat slips or 29 additional trailer units for this
$2 million basically. And as we heard, we may be infringing in
regards to access onto a state preserve whereby we are the people who
oversee this preserve whereby we are the people who oversee this
facility. We're the protectors of that preserve. And luckily the State of
Florida allows us to use this as an area for beach access.
The other concerns I have is when I look at this in looking for
additional density -- I live in District 2, and I live on the coast -- and
there's many, many residents that I represent. In fact, not only do I
represent the residents in District 2, but my vote here on this
commission is for all of the citizens of Collier County.
And I really can't see where it's a real big benefit for the county
to zone this residential when I see that we have 312,000 individuals
Page 214
March 22-23, 2005
that are residents here in Collier County, not only the 60,000 that are
in District 2.
So I -- Commissioners, I cannot go with the zoning and
residential. If you so desire, then I say we limit the density to four
units per acre and we do not get involved in the vessel draft because
another concern is, this is considered outstanding Florida waters, and I
don't believe that we have the ability to change the draft in that area
because there is an inlet coastal management program, and I think that
should be for another day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much,
Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, there are some
people here that are opposed to commercial. I want to let you know
that I live across the street from commercial, and I love it. It's a
commercial activity center, and it's very convenient for me.
But this is not a commercial activity center. It is a
nonconforming commercial, and that's why they have the opportunity
to ask for -- again, ask for, the increased density.
While I was up here, I was searching the PUD list that the county
has generated in that area. I just was curious to know the density. And
there are a lot of PUDs surrounding this that has higher density, and
it's been rezoned since the growth management plan was enacted in
1989, like David Weigel said.
So if we've been doing it wrong, we've been doing it wrong for a
long time. And if we are wrong, then some of you here are over four
units per acre, but I know none of you here generated over four units
per acre, so it must be your neighbor, either to your left or right or up
above or down below. And I'm sure not going to tell them that they
don't belong there because somebody screwed up, because I don't
think we screwed up.
But if you really feel that they screwed up, maybe you ought to
Page 215
March 22-23,2005
have your lawyer tell them, your neighbor, that the county screwed
up, and they need to move out.
You know, I can't -- this issue of density in this area, the biggest
complainer is a person who lives in the highest density on the coast,
and I just can't understand that. You know, I know that our staff is
applying the growth management plan correctly. There's no question
about it. And I hope that if it's ever challenged, that we defend it.
The PUD is a negotiated land use. We -- and we do it every day,
and not one of us up here don't do it, is we ask for concessions. And
there's nothing different in this one that there are concessions on the
table. And, you know, the thing is, it's not going to stay a marina.
And our growth management plan says it's a nonconforming
commercial. So we have said to the public that we encourage it to go
to residential. And if the motion is to keep the four units per acre, then
I think we need to ask the petitioner if he's okay with that. I don't see
that as part of the application.
So -- and, again, it's -- I think it's a -- it's something that has to be
agreed on by the petitioner because that isn't what's being asked.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As I look through, I asked -- this is
one of the requests that I had by the staff to present. Give you some
ideas. Lely Barefoot Beach condo has a gross density of 5.46; Lely
Barefoot is 2.25 units per acre; Little Hickory Bay, 4.54; Audubon
Country Club is .95; Glen Eden on the Bay, which is a fairly new
PUD, is 2.1; Cocohatchee Bay, which hasn't even been built yet is 1.1.
So I think that some of the commissioners that may have been --
may have been on this board before I was, they looked at this very
carefully. Wiggins Bay is four units per acre. And we go down even
to -- see if I can find it here.
We go down to a lot -- some other ones here. The Dunes is 3.39
units per acre. So I think that if somebody decides that they're going
Page 216
March 22-23, 2005
to -- Pelican Bay is 4.29, and we know the density in there with the
amount of acres.
So I really think that we've set the precedence for four units per
acre or less. But I think that for the aspect of all of our citizens,
commercial here -- has been here for a long period of time. In fact,
this marina property, and we all know it, may never be a marina again,
but it was commercial, and it was operating up till a couple of years
ago.
And at that time nobody had any problems with it. It was -- it
seemed to blend in with the neighborhood, a lot of the people around
there. Now all of a sudden it's closed and now it's the big problem, and
it's because it's been closed.
And I believe that the petitioner also, his representative, paid
dearly to keep that marina closed. I heard as high as $75,000 a month
to close it and to have all the boats vacated out of there, and it's been
closed this period of time.
So that's some other information I need -- think needs to be there.
I'd like to make a motion that it remain commercial.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas.
And it apparently dies for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we hear from the petitioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you have a specific question of the
petitioner, go ahead and ask it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See if possibly four units per acre
would work on there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Fiala, I guess -- for the
record, Rich Y ovanovich -- from a dollars and cents standpoint, if we
go down to four units per acre, the property's more valuable as straight
commercial.
So you would -- bringing us down to four units per acre is
leaving it commercial, and that's not in the community's best interest.
Page 217
March 22-23,2005
I don't think anybody really wants it to stay commercial.
I know -- during the discussions we sharpened the pencils, you
know, figuring out what's the bottom line number that we can live
with, trying to -- as you said, maybe we could work some kind of a
compromIse.
And we've got to get to 85 units, which is e.ight and a half, so
that's giving up 10 units to come down on the residential. I, mean
that's as far as we can go; otherwise, we're -- the commercial is where
we're going to have to be, and I don't think anybody testified that they
really wanted commercial.
So I hope, Commissioner Fiala, that's enough, keeping in mind
that residentials already the least amount of traffic generation there is
out there, but that can hopefully be enough to get us to a number that
the commission can support.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's been my real problem with
the traffic generated. And I was saying to one of the traffic people
during the break, what I'm having a real tough time with is you can't
compare apples to apples. You have four units per acre in a coastal
high hazard area, but it doesn't say anything about commercial or --
whether it be a shopping area or hotels.
And as we all know, hotels are going to generate a lot more
traffic, and continuous different traffic all the time, including things
like employees and delivery trucks and so forth.
And then you've got the noise that also comes from something
like that because they have to have entertainment and they have the
bars and so forth and lounges and so forth, and I truly worry about
what that's going to do to a neighborhood, quite frankly.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think destination retail, which is
the alternative that we would have if the hotel's not approved, will do
the same thing. It would be even more traffic. That's 7,300 trips per
day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it shows us right here how
Page 218
March 22-23,2005
much traffic is actually generated.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to speak now? I'd like to say
something --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You go ahead. You speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- sometime.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're the chair. You speak
firs t.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to address a couple of issues, and
one is sort of a personal issue. If the land development code and the
growth management plan were so clear that it didn't require
interpretation, there would be no reason for us to exist. There would
be no reason to have a quasijudicial hearing for us to weigh evidence
and try to reach a decision.
For someone to suggest that their interpretation of the growth
management plan is the only interpretation that can possibly be made,
in my opinion, is not only arrogant, but insulting.
We ask you to come here and tell us how you feel for a reason,
because we like to understand what is best for the community. And
let me read to you the rezone criteria that we have as a guideline here.
We have to take into consideration the existing land use pattern.
Is there any significance to the fact that the land use pattern has
recently been mostly residential? Yeah. We have to take a look at
that.
The possible creation or allowing to exist an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts, commercial in the midst of
neighborhoods.
You know, we can go down this long list of things and try to
decide what we should do, but I think the issue really is one that must
be made between residential and commercial, because I -- it's not time
yet, but I quite frankly cannot see how you can justify a destination
resort hotel, just don't see it happening.
Page 219
March 22-23,2005
But with respect to the residential, I think we have to take into
consideration the neighborhood itself and how our decision is going to
impact the neighborhood. It is the least -- it has the least traffic impact
on the neighborhood. We've heard from staff tell us that we have the
right to make the decision, and our county attorney has advised us we
have the right to make the decision.
So the increased density of 180 people maybe, or 80 units -- it
could be 160 people now -- is a non-issue. Ifwe balked every time
something happened that created 160 more people in Collier County,
then I'm not sure we're -- we'd be evaluating the overall county
requirements very clearly.
But I would like to try to find a compromise that worked. It's
going to take four commissioners to get this approved.
And my only interest in even bringing that up is the fact that we
have a lot of people who've said they would like to have residential
here. So in the interest of trying to satisfy the people who are most
directly affected, the people who see it every day, then I am inclined
to support the residential.
But it makes no difference if there are not sufficient votes on this
commission to -- for it to be approved, and so I have opposition
coming up immediately from Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coletta's first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta's first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You sure now? I don't want to
get out of turn.
I don't know if you've noticed it, but we're really wrestling with
something that's extremely difficult here. The reason being is that one
of our commissioners is very passionately in one direction, and the
rest of us are leaning the other way.
It's his passion and everything that's causing us to bring this issue
up over and over again. We think he's done an excellent job in his
Page 220
March 22-23,2005
district. We love everything he's done. He's been a tremendous
commissioner not only for his district, but throughout all of Collier
County .
So here we sit, five commissioners up here. Four of them pretty
sure that they don't want commercial. They're not too sure about
residential to a point, although we haven't got to the point we actually
exercised that. We really don't know how the other four
commissioners feel, but we do know how Commissioner Halas feels.
There's no doubt about that.
We could keep playing this little -- not game. We could keep this
going for some time back and forth, back and forth, meanwhile the
clock is going on, 5:37, moving towards 6:00, and I seen these types
of things carry on for a half an hour, 40 minutes, before we get to the
point where somebody says, I'd like to make a motion, and that
motion's made, and then the discussion ensues from there, and we
come to a final decision on it.
I hate to be the motion maker, because I sit right next to
Commissioner Halas, you know. The only advantage is that this desk
does have a petition underneath it so he can't kick me too hard. But in
light of that -- and it's not light, and it's not easy to do, for discussion
purposes, I'm going to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of the staff recommendations
for this to be a residential facility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At how many units?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At four units per acre.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I didn't say that. I don't
think that four units per acre would be an acceptable amount by staff.
But if I don't get a second, then that will end that and the discussion
will have to go in a different direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They agreed to reduce it to eight, I
believe.
Page 221
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you say -- I'm sorry. Did you ask if it
was 85 units?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is the amount you agreed
to reduce it to?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We have agreed to the 85 units
versus the 95 we asked for.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, 85 units. To reduce it to
85 units, and that's the motion that I make, and we'll see where it goes
from there to start with.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just enter something before
we have a second, if I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it for the sake of
discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, question,
discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, wait. Maybe we
misunderstood something.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to interject a couple of
things, then I'll be quiet. I'm concerned about when we rezone a piece
of property because it acts -- to me, I think we have a reason for denial
where it would grant special privilege to an individual owner as a
contrast to the public welfare, and I mean that sincerely.
Now, if we're going to go ahead and move forward on this as far
as -- if you still feel that -- and obviously you feel strongly about that
because we've tried to say that we wanted to keep it residential ( sic)
and the motion failed.
I just want to let people know that also this -- the area around this
property is zoned residential tourist. It's residential tourist, so that
means that you can put a motel or a hotel in there because it fits that
Page 222
March 22-23, 2005
criteria. That's what's in that general area.
I have a problem for addressing and sitting here and asking the
petitioner what is it going to take to -- for him to make money on this
property .
I think it's fairly clear that it says four units per acre in all the
three items that I brought up here, and we'll see where it goes from
there.
But I cannot see giving a density bonus of this high when I look
at the other areas that were -- that were PUDs, recently been approved
in this area, for that kind of density. Four units per acre.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have the motion on the floor,
Commissioner Coletta, the motion maker, Commissioner Fiala
seconded.
You still with it or you still --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would prefer to have the density
reduced a little bit more just because I feel that we do need to set a
precedent here.
I think we have to -- we've always cared about what the residents
feel, and as I said, if I were living right there, I would hate it if
somebody put a hotel next to me when I was never aware that it was
going to come in and all of the noise that could be generated. I
wouldn't want anybody to do that to me, so I wouldn't want to do that
to these people.
I would love to see this density reduced a little bit more. I know
that you're having a problem with that, and so am I. You know, I'm
just torn. I want to vote for the people who are living right there, and
yet I want to stay as close to our growth management plan as we can.
I realize we're allowed to grant 16 units. I don't feel we should in
a coastal high hazard area. I've seen us do it time and time and time
again in other areas where we've given extra density because of this,
that, or the other. I've always complained about that, and that's why I
felt if we could just reduce it just a little bit more so that then we can
Page 223
March 22-23, 2005
-- we can feel that we've kept as close to the -- as close to the growth
management plan as we could, and yet we've also taken the neighbors
into consideration.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have to vote by the laws, and
we can't just vote by emotion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the law says that, you know,
they have a right to ask for this density.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I don't want to bring up things
that we've done in the past. I'm going to just focus on this. I just feel
that we have to think as -- you know, it's a coastal high hazard area, I
understand that. One good thing is that it's residential, and most of the
people, as we've heard from these people all day, most of them don't
stay here during hurricane season anyway. I think it's a lot easier--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a huge --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's a lot easier than having a
business or, you know, businesses there because then they're there all
year-round, and so I do not go for the commercial at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the -- the only choice, I believe, is
either residential or commercial, that's it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there's always no to both.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To both.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that means it goes commercial,
because if you say no to everything, it stays commercial __
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and then it becomes something else.
Now, that's okay if that's the will of the majority. I'm not going to get
involved in fighting for the petitioner's plan.
I would only say to you that -- that I believe that the strategy is __
by the people who oppose this, the strategy is to make sure nothing
happens with this until such time as somebody, perhaps, some day,
Page 224
March 22-23, 2005
comes by and proposes something that is appealing to them.
And as we have said many times here, hope is not a plan, and that
gets you into a lot of trouble. You get backed into a corner.
Right now as a commercial parcel, they can do certain things on
that commercial parcel without even coming back to us and asking for
our opinion. And let's suppose that is not a good thing. Let's suppose
they just -- the owner gets frustrated, the owner says, okay, I'm going
to go sell this thing to anybody who's going to buy it, build a
commercial facility, do it at the least cost possible, since he'll make
money on it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Be careful, you might get what you
ask for; is that what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. That's essentially what I'm
saying, because if the price of the land is too high, then whoever
invests in it to develop a shopping center or some other commercial
enterprise is not likely to spend all that much more money on it,
because, you know, what's the return?
So we must find ourselves in a position where if we wait and
hope that something good happens, it might not be good that happens.
It might be bad that happens, and we will have lost all control over
what happens here.
So the -- the real issue is between residential and commercial, not
hotel. The real issue is residential or commercial, leave it the way it
IS.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As Commissioner Coletta said
though, it looks like four of us are going toward residential anyway.
Now, I think if we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I might not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think if we had -- if we split
that 16 and a half and we have eight, it's still double of what is
allowed in the area, yet it's half of what could be. And like you stated
earlier -- and it was a really good point. We're only talking about 80
Page 225
March 22-23, 2005
units here, for goodness sake, you know, if that's it. It's not like we're
talking about 800 or 500. It's 80 units. And of those 80 units, there
will probably be only 20 of them that stay in town year-round.
So if Commissioner Coletta would reduce it to 80 units I would
second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to ask the petitioner the
question. Where are we?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: At 80, 80, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The only thing is, my
motion only stands if all the amenities which was referred to as
blackmail, which it isn't, are still on the table and being offered.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is, and we need to -- you need to
allow us to properly amenitize our project now that we've lost some
uni ts.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the height of it is down to 75
feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. No, it is not. The height stays right
where it is because we're --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A hundred forty-four feet?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to -- it's at 120 feet zoned
height.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Remember the truth in advertising --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The truth in advertising is 144. If
you drop the units from 95, why would the building still remain the
same?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because we want to properly amenitize
this because now we have less units, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we need that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Halas, you
know --
Page 226
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You could use that room for a golf
course.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Indoor. That hurt.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I still-- I didn't hear -- maybe
I'm not listening, but I still didn't hear a definitive answer. All the
amenities --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Everything else is included. Everything
else.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I amend my motion.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Eighty units at the height we're asking
for, and all of the other --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eighty units.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a second on that
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. There is a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the issue with drafting
on the water? I mean, Commissioner Halas is agreeable to that, and--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're taking it out, correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The restriction is out. We agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a part of that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you're saying it should be
consistent with the manatee protection plan.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the issue? What's the
issue with the mangroves?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The mangroves really is an issue that --
can I let Ken talk to you? He can explain it to you? Ken?
Page 227
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're just about there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: All it means is when we did the original
plan for the 158 units, that included a flushing unit. We have a much
smaller marina now, so there is no need for the flushing. That's a
requirement that's not part of our new size marina, so we don't know
why staff is imposing on us to construct mangroves when nobody else
is requiring that we construct mangroves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a part of the motion, to--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? The mangrove
issue, was that part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that's part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Remove it, because they're dealing with
a smaller flushing area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, were you --
had you finished or did you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, the second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's part of my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we got a second.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're not dealing with the depth
either. That's out of the question; is that correct? This is outstanding
Florida waterways?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you will be required to adhere to the
manatee protection plan, right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now I've got some other -- other
issues I want to deal with. I--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to say -- I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
Page 228
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that -- overall I think the
citizens in Collier County are going to lose in the long run.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think -- and I feel very strongly
with that. I don't care where it stands, how -- which way this goes, but
I can tell you that I'm not for anything over four units per acre, and
when we rezone this, we lose all possibility, ever, forever, of ever
having anybody use this as a way to get to the waterways, and this is
an outstanding --
(Applause.).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- this pass is a direct access to the
Gulf. Do you understand that? And you're only going to limit it to
this little handful of extra parking spots, and that's going to be it?
That's all I have to stay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, I have some other
concerns. Yes, please. I found that -- the requirements specified by
staff pertaining to the eagle protection plan to be very vague.
Now, I understand that you're going to monitor the eagles for
activity to determine if there is -- there is unusual disturbance or
erratic behavior, but it really doesn't tell me what you're going to do
about it. It doesn't -- I found nothing very specific about what action
would be taken under those circumstances.
And what I want to get is some fairly clear statement of intent
with respect to how you're going to do the construction and minimize
the impact upon the eagle.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And I'll let Andy jump in if I
leave anything out. But right now we're required to basically start on
the north and work our way south, is one of the stipulations. Another
one is we've agreed to pad the dump trucks to stop the noise.
We've agreed to educate, prior to doing any construction, educate
the construction workers as to eagles and their concerns. We've
agreed that if there's -- if there's a problem with the eagle, that we'll
Page 229
March 22-23, 2005
stop construction and we won't recommence until we address the
eagles with the -- the issues with the eagle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's in the primary and the
secondary zone?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're only in the secondary zone. We're
not in the primary zone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the secondary.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And then the second -- yeah. So
we're not in the primary zone. We're in the secondary zone. So we
have -- we have agreed to a lot of restrictions and -- on how we go
about our construction, and I think I've hit the highlights of about all
of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you had a camera to monitor the
activity.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the -- the camera, we talked about it
earlier so everybody's protected as to what is -- is or is not going on
with the eagle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is going to make a determination
by viewing the film or that camera that the bird is acting erratically as
a result of your construction?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There is a monitor that has to be retained,
and the monitor has to be from -- we will -- we're going to consult
with the Collier County chapter of the Audubon Society regarding the
choice of the monitor. So that monitor will not work for us. It will be
independent and it will address those issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And refresh my memory about the
requirement in the secondary zone with respect to stopping work
during nesting season.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, there is no requirement that we
stop work during the nesting season in the secondary zone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you will do that if --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If there are eagle issues, yes.
Page 230
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've just got one question for Joe
Schmitt. Did we ever assess any fines for the person who cut down
the tree that was in the marina there that was used by the eagle for a
perch?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was Rich Yovanovich.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Community Development/Environmental Services. Commissioner,
no. Never found out who actually cut the tree down, and--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Amazing.
MR. SCHMITT: And we had an investigation, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife was involved as well, but it was never determined who
actually removed the tree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It just happened to disappear one
day and that was it. Amazing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further questions,
Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the question.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and seconded
by Commissioner Fiala to approve the residential petition with certain
stipulations with respect to no more than 80 units, and also certain
stipulations with respect to eagle protection, removing any
requirements pertaining to mangroves, mangrove issues, and requiring
you to adhere to the mangrove -- manatee protection plan with respect
to water damage.
Did I cover them all?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, plus they had --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You did wonderful.
MR. MUDD: Plus they had some other things as far as -- there
were 29 trailer parking spaces, 21 car--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All those things that are in the staffs
Page 231
March 22-23, 2005
recommendation.
MR. MUDD: -- the million dollars, all that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All of those in favor, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All those opposed, signify by saying no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carried 4-1. Commissioner Halas is in
opposition.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just hope that when we -- we
don't have to have this on our conscience for the safety, health, and
welfare.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, at this point there's no --
we're just going to ask that you continue the discussion on the
destination resort hotel because there's -- at this point, they're
inconsistent, and we've already been notified that they're probably
going to challenge this, and we'd just as soon deal with that appeal
issue before we address the hotel issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's over with.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It depends if they appeal, Commissioner
Halas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me tell you something. I really don't
want to see this thing come back.
(Applause.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not my call.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't ever want to see you again.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On this petition, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why can't we make a decision on this
Page 232
March 22-23, 2005
other item today?
Item #7B
PETITION CU-2004-AR-6625 ECOVENTURE WIGGINS PASS,
LTD., REPRESENTED BY ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP, OF
RWA CONSULTING, INC., AND RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH,
ESQUIRE, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON,
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE OF THE C-4 ZONING
DISTRICT FOR A HOTEL & SPA PER CHAPTER 2.04.03 OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 10.45 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT
13635 VANDERBILT DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about we do this, since they're
inconsistent results, we'll go ahead and withdraw it. You can't vote on
it because we're already zoned PUD, so you can't vote for a continual
use that would -- it's inconsistent with the PUD, it's withdrawn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Withdrawn. Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chair and the Commissioners, I just want to
follow up on that. I want to be -- when we talk about what you can and
cannot do, you have two items before you. And as Mr. Schmitt
indicated at the beginning, they're both on mutually exclusive, and the
vote for one does not -- I just want to tell you -- does not prevent you
from taking action on the other, notwithstanding that you've just voted
to a different result from the previous zoning that existed at this point
in time.
So the withdrawal by the petitioner is an option that you may
allow, you may permit that if you wish, but it's not the only thing you
can do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We could vote on that issue?
Page 233
March 22-23, 2005
MR. WEIGEL: You could vote on that issue. Obviously if you
vote on that issue and it's being heard second because that was the
sequence it was set up to, if you were to vote yes, then you would un
-- essentially be changing the zoning that you just did with the
residential a few moments ago.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You can't do that.
MR. WEIGEL: So there -- you know, there's a non sequitur to
that. But in any event, withdrawal is only one option. You could vote
on it. If he withdraws, there would be an inability to bring this -- to
bring that matter back for a period of time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We will permit it to be
withdrawn, but I --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't want to hear it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you talk to some others.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you all.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner --ladies and gentlemen, if you
could please exit the room. We're not done with this agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've done more to protect the future of
Collier County than any other commissioners in--
MR. MUDD: On your way out, please keep it down. If you're
going to stay, please stay. We still have to continue this meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, please clear the
room and let us continue our business. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah,
we have some other things to do.
Item #10G
RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE A CONDITIONAL AWARD
Page 234
March 22-23,2005
OF BID #05-3756 TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT (NCRWTP) LOWER HAWTHORN
WELLS 18N, 19N, AND 20N PUMPING AND TRANSMISSION
FACILITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,156,000.00, SUBJECT TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION'S (FDEP) APPROVAL, AUTHORIZATION TO
INCUR COSTS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE BOARD TO
EXECUTE THE SUBJECT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AS
REQUIRED BY PROVISIONS OF THE LOW INTEREST RATE
STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN PROGRAM WHICH
WILL FUND THIS CONTRACT, PROJECT NUMBER 71006-
AEEROVED W/CONIlITIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that bring us to item lOG, and
that's a recommendation to make a conditional award of bid 05-3756
to Mitchell and Stark Construction Company for the North Collier
Regional Water Treatment Plant, lower Hawthorne wells 18N, 19N,
and 20N pumping and transmission facilities in the amount of
$5,156,000 subject to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection's approval, authorization to incur costs and authorization
for the board to execute the subj ect construction contract as required
by provisions of the low interest rate State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan
program which will fund the contract. It's program number 71006,
and Mr. Pete Schalt, from the public utilities division, will present.
MR. SCHAL T: Good evening, Commissioners. Peter Schalt,
senior project manager, public utilities engineering. I'm here to
present item lOG, which is the recommendation to award a conditional
award of bid number 05-3756 to Mitchell and Stark for the North
County Regional Water Treatment Plant, lower Hawthorne wells 18N
through 20N pumping and transmission facilities subject to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection Agency's approval as
Page 235
March 22-23, 2005
required by the SRF funding in the amount of$5,156,000 for project
71006.
The staff recommendation is to -- we recommend a conditional
award approval of bid number 05-3756. We recommend that you
authorize the chairman to execute the standard Collier County
construction contract once the FDEP provides final authorization
under the SRF program and the county attorney approves.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, motion to approve.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor -- or is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is basically a contract,
enter into contract?
MR. SCHAL T: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to tell the county manager, I
didn't get any details of this contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. That's something you
like to do is read over the contracts beforehand. I know you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're going to enter into an
agreement, I think we all should read it, but that's just my opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want to postpone this until you
have a chance to review --
MR. SCHAL T: May I address that? It was a formal bid, and the
contract is not composed just yet. The DEP, as a part of the SRF
funding program, will give authorization. At the time county attorney
will have approved it and you will have an opportunity to review it.
Standard construction contract.
Page 236
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but the terms of the
contract is what I'm interested in. And if we're entering -- giving
approval of that now without us reviewing it, that's wrong. If you're
saying you're bringing the contract back, I don't have a problem with
this conditional recommendation, not an award of a bid. But I think
we're all due to take a look at contracts, bids.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Suppose we suggest that it be approved
contingent upon the board's review of the final contract -- review and
approval of the final contract?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, would you include
that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta, will you
include that in your second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that's in my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Will this contract be back before the board so I
know not to sign it until --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will have to come back before the
board for review before it can be signed.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: What we'll do is take your guidance here tonight
and take it to the DEP, and then we'll finalize that process like a
normal contract. We'll bring it back for board ratification at the time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good. Is that okay,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's fine.
Page 237
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion is to approve this contract
contingent upon the board's review and approval of the final contract?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion,
Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous. Commissioner Halas was
absent.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Item #14A
APPROVAL TO EXECUTE THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY
TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to items (sic)
14A, and that was previously 16G 1, and that was a recommendation to
approve and execute the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment
area executive director employment agreement between the
community redevelopment agency and David L. Jackson.
Page 238
March 22-23, 2005
Mr. Jackson?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He probably got tired and went
home.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, here he is.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Jackson's there. He's coming.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This was a test to see if you
could last this long.
MR. MUDD: And, Commissioners, the issue here was on
severance, and there was not a severance clause in Mr. Jackson's
contract, and he wanted to be able to address that with you so he could
talk about that particular issue before you voted on his contract.
Mr . Jackson will present.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, prospective applicant for the
CRA. I had no issue. It was inadvertently left out. I just asked that it
be entered.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve, Commissioner
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Commissioner Henning's
got a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a problem with number
12, living expenses, of reimbursement from March 16th through
March 31 st. I think you're due expenses and travel for the interview
of the advisory board and related expenses to be here today, to be here
before the Board of Commissioners, but I have approximately two
weeks of a total -- hotel expenses and meals, is, I think, a little
exorbitant.
MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman,
because this is a CRA matter, assistant county attorney.
Page 239
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, you're right. It is Madam
Chair.
MR. WHITE: And I'd like to address the commissioner's
question, if you don't mind, Mr. Jackson, from the legal perspective
first. The reason why the provision is in there and I signed it for form
and sufficiency is because my understanding is that Mr. Jackson began
his employ for the CRA on the 16th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This CRA board didn't hire him.
MR. WHITE: Correct, and that's what the matter's here for
today, and I understand -- just so you understand why it's in there in
the first place. Now, as to whether you want it in there or not, that's a
separate matter and I'm --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who entered into the contract
for the CRA board?
MR. WHITE: We have a, signed by your executive director
candidate, contract --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. WHITE: I have a contract here that's an original that was
signed by Mr. Jackson and signed for form and sufficiency by myself
solely for the purposes of being able to allow you to consider it today
so that if, indeed, you decided that it was fair and appropriate to
compensate him for what labors he began on the 16th through the 31 st
of this month, as specified in paragraph 13, that you'd be able to do so.
My point is simply to make for the record evident the fact that
the contract would be lawful with that provision in it. If you choose to
not have it in there and you do not want to compensate him for those
efforts, then we will revise the contract according to whatever the vote
of the CRA is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's my issue, and maybe you
can assist me. The CRA board has the ability to hire and fire --
Page 240
March 22-23,2005
MR. WHITE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- or terminate the contract?
MR. WHITE: Under the terms of the contract, yes, if you enter
into it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're asking us to approve a
backdated contract, essentially?
MR. WHITE: Well, the contract would be dated effective as of
today, but some of the provisions would operate to a prior point in
time to compensate for labors that were provided and certain other
aspects of his living expenses from the 16th, certainly until today, and
as specified, as it's written now, through the 31st.
Now I assume that's because after the 31st he'll have found
somewhere else to reside or will take that out of his salary.
MR. JACKSON: Commissioner, I may be able to shed some
light on it that may make you feel better.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, thank you.
MR. JACKSON: That provision was offered by the advisory
board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: I explicitly told them I had no intention to ask
for compensation or reimbursement for moving expenses. I would
handle that out of my own pocket. I was -- had no intention of using
hotel or rental facilities in the area, that I would not ask for any
compensation on that part of it.
I have secured residence here, and that is just the normal course
of moving and relocating. You can strike that paragraph if you wish. I
have no intention of exercising or submitting any request for per diem,
lodging, meals, or anything.
The only -- my only discussion that I've had, mostly indirectly,
and mostly with the attorney, was that there would be a severance
clause. The other one was inserted by the advisory board. And as far
as I'm concerned, there's no execution of that.
Page 241
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I just want to be
fair.
MR. JACKSON: I don't have any problem with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, I know you're
not asking for moving expenses, but I think we need to be consistent
with all employees that come to the county.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, but it's not required.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I just don't believe this
is consistent of what we have done in the past for other employees, but
I think there's some latitude there.
MR. JACKSON: The moving expenses are minimal. I mean, it's
nothing that I can't adequately cover, and I've already executed that
part of it, and I'm here in residence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And so -- just so we know for the -- and you tell
me if the severance issue is incorrect, Mr. Jackson. And basically, it is
the first six months, there's no severance, and after the first six months
there's three months base salary, severance after a six-month period of
time; is that correct, sir?
MR. JACKSON: That's correct.
MR. WHITE: I'd just note for the record that that is only in the
circumstance where it's without cause.
MR. JACKSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I have some concerns. Is
the CRA under the jurisdiction of this group here which we are in the
-- act as the CRA agent?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned that we weren't --
this wasn't addressed to us prior to this gentleman taking employment
by the CRA commission. And no offense to you, sir, because you're
an innocent party in this, but what concerns me is that the people who
Page 242
March 22-23, 2005
are involved in this CRA didn't come to us and tell us what was going
on until after the fact, and that upsets me, because I felt that we were
part of the controlling board here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me interrupt you just for a minute.
They actually wanted to. They wanted to call a special meeting. Sue
can tell you how they worked with them. And there was -- because of
us being in Tallahassee in this -- in this time frame, we were not here
for them to call the special meeting.
And Sue, as you can see, is nodding.
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They wanted to immediately tell us
except they didn't have the opportunity because of our schedules.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But normally when you -- when
you go through an interview process, I would think that we would be
included in that interview process prior to this gentleman coming
onboard, or whoever else; in other words, bring him in here and say,
this is the candidate that we're looking at prior to signing all
agreements. You see where I'm coming at?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that, being that we
have to function as we are, we need to make sure or at least have the
ability to ask the gentleman a few questions prior to even being hired.
And I think we've lost that -- we've lost that jurisdiction of being able
to do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I would think we could do that right
now. No?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's after the fact. What I'm
saying is -- you know, it's just like if you go in for a job inter -- a job
interview and somebody says, yeah, you've got the job, but the person
that's going to run the corporation would like to also interview that
person and doesn't have that ability before the fact.
Page 243
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't worry about any of this stuff.
You know, can we talk about that in a few minutes, maybe after we
deal with his contract? Would you feel comfortable going ahead and
dealing with his contract --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then talk a little bit about
this relationship between the CRA and the advisory board and how we
can make it better; would that be okay for you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whatever.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Great. Does anybody have any
concerns with the contract?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I do in the sense that the
person who left was making 65,000 and then the person, this
gentleman here, is making an additional 23,000, and why -- why the
big compensation difference, okay?
MR. JACKSON: Experience.
MR. MUDD: If I can help a little bit. Just from reading the
resume between the previous director and this director, there's a huge
difference in experience as far as what Mr. Jackson brings to the table
versus what the previous director had.
And I believe there was some attempts by the advisory board to
-- to advertise for this position at a lower rate, and they didn't receive
the quality of person that they needed at that lower rate.
Mr. Jackson comes to us with a breadth of experience in this
particular CRA role that -- what he's done prior, but I'll let Mr.
Jackson speak to his own experience.
MR. JACKSON: I think I'm bringing to the table a wealth of
experience, seven years in working with CRAs in a community that
had three CRAs and one improvement district, and I think that's what
I'm bringing to the table for you is to work with you and the
community to bring about all the progress that you want to have
happen.
Page 244
March 22-23,2005
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So bottom line is this gentleman is
more experienced than the last, and I presume they decided to give
him more money.
Do we want to accept the recommendations of the advisory board
with respect to this hire and to this contract?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we already had a motion on the
floor, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You made the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coletta made the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did. I was just checking her.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought I -- I said yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's getting late.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then from my
understanding, there was some concerns over his moving expenses,
which are in the contract and he -- no?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not in there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's hotel and per diem expenses for
the last week to 10 days while he's been working here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Six days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Six days.
MR. JACKSON: Right. And I'm not going to exercise that
option. You can put a big --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He paid for his own moving expenses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's very noble of you.
MR. JACKSON: No. That's just in the normal course of doing
business.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. In that case I amend my
motion to remove that part from it having to do with the hotels and the
fees and any moving expenses.
Page 245
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. My second as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And you're adding the severance clause?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And adding the severance clause to his
contract.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct. But it's already in
there. It exists in the contract now that we have, doesn't it?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Severability.
MR. JACKSON: In the signed contract that the attorney has.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then how can we add
something that's already there?
MR. MUDD: No, it isn't -- it isn't in the contract that you have in
your agenda packet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: It was a change that was made, and that's why I
had Mr. Jackson come before you and talk about that severance
clause.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're adding it to the--
MR. MUDD: We're adding it --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you sent -- you sent us a revised
issue, because I know I read it.
MR. MUDD: You're right. You have a revised issue. It just
wasn't in the published -- it just wasn't in the published one that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We got it. Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 246
March 22-23,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very good, Donna.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm the chairman.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, wait a minute. Before we leave
that, Commissioner Halas has an issue, and I think he's absolutely
right, and the next one's going to deal with the CRA, too, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's hear the next one then,
and we'll deal with both of them at the same time, okay? All right.
Let's talk about the next one.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioner Fiala's the chairman on the
next one as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. Okay.
And the next issue is l6G2?
Item #14B
APPROVAL TO EXECUTE THE SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE GRANT APPLICANT
WITHIN THE BA YSHORE/GATEW A Y TRIANGLE
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. It is now 14B, and 16G2 was a
recommendation to approve and execute the site improvement grant
agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and the
grant applicant within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment
Area, and I believe that's the grant -- that grant agreement with Ms.
King.
Page 247
March 22-23,2005
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And Commissioner Coyle was the
one that requested this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, yeah. Let me explain.
You'll recall that there was some question as to whether or not there
was an ethics issue with respect to an advisory board member
applying for and receiving a grant while serving on the advisory
board.
The county attorney has opined that that ethics issue can be cured
if the recipient, or the proposed recipient, resigns from the advisory
board before the grant is awarded. And Ms. King has, in fact, done
that.
Now, it raises a question about our procedures from here on out.
Is it okay for Ms. King to get right back on the advisory board now
that she has gotten the award of the grant? Can she still serve on the
advisory board? Is there a waiting period? Or must she be forever
banned from the advisory board? Now, what do we do here? You
know, we're plowing new ground.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Well, Ms. King was on the advisory
committee when the application was submitted, and it was in the pro --
and at that time anyone who wished to submit, including advisory
committee members, were submitting, and we ran into this issue with
two other members of the committee as well.
She did not vote as an advisory committee member on her own
submittal, which was a good thing. My best recommendation, having
worked with the commission on ethics, in regard to all three members,
would be that an application be processed by a person who is not even
on the committee, and that is not the case that we have here. She had
gone ahead and resubmitted it after her resignation from the
committee.
But technically, legally, there is no issue in that regard, so it
becomes a local issue only as to the protocol and procedure for this
particular advisory committee member and the committee and any
Page 248
March 22-23, 2005
other committee in regard to committee members potentially
submitting applications that effectively create doing business with the
county, because that is prohibited action, is that an advisory
committee member cannot do business with the county of the
appointing authority, in this case the CRA, which is you.
So she is technically correct, and you can or may take the action
that you wish today in regard to this application. But for the future, I'd
be very happy to look for direction from you that we can create as
policy, bring it back, relating to and I -- relating to the practices of
advisory committee members generally, meaning all of the
approximately 60 committees that we have, to make it very clear, if
the board would so care, that advisory committee members and those
who would apply to become on advisory committees would know
ahead of time that while they're on the committee, they cannot, should
not, shall not apply for grants or other contractual relations with the
county or the CRA or any committee to which this Board of County
Commissioners is the appointing body.
And additionally, we can craft into position a quiet time after a
person is off a committee to make an application, if that's the board's
desire. You've imposed this kind of thing on employees, just such as
me, that if I leave the county employ, I can't come back before this
board for two years or essentially do business with you in my own
trade.
So these are not things that you've looked into before, and it
could be done in a general way and so that the advisory committee
members are -- and potential advisory members know about that
procedure well ahead of time.
And I'd be very happy to bring something back to you with or
without specific direction. I think I have an idea of what some
variations on this theme that could be looked at.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners Coyle, there's something Ir
Page 249
March 22-23, 2005
would like to question Mr. Weigel about. You were saying to do this
for all of the committees. This particular committee, it seems, you
don't have to have a particular expertise, you're not bidding on
anything, they're not giving you anything that everybody else not only
is entitled to but can get. And my fear is, for this particular committee
-- now, Ms. King not only dropped off this committee, she also
dropped off the Bayshore MSTU.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And she was so horribly embarrassed by
this, it made her feel as though she were a criminal. And she is of the
highest ethics, one of the few people I've met that I'd trust with my
wallet to walk anyplace. I mean, she would never do anything at all
unethical, so it made her feel terribly embarrassed, and I don't think
she'll ever want to get on the committee again, quite frankly, and
many have begged her to do that.
Conversely, with the other people on this committee, most of
them are in this same situation where we're trying to get these people
in the triangle area -- and most of them in the triangle area, by the
way, are, you know, just residents of very moderate income, and then
you've got the Bayshore people, some high, some low, and we want
them all to participate. We actually have criteria for these two areas.
But if they feel that they are not able to participate in this, I'm
worried about how we'll manage that as well. It doesn't affect the
Windstar people because they have nothing to -- you know, nothing to
fix up there. But it does affect all of the other areas in there.
And as we talk about it -- I mean, we might not be able to decide
today, but maybe we could come up with something -- I don't know
what it is -- so that we don't discourage people from getting on this
committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The real problem is that there's a
Page 250
March 22-23, 2005
state law that prohibits this from happening, and I don't know that we
can pass anything here that will bypass the state law.
But I was merely trying to make sure we didn't get back into the
situation if someone dropped -- happened to drop out of the advisory
board and then -- to accept a grant and then come back in, would we
get into a problem with doing that, and I'm just trying to avoid having
this happen all over again.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. I think that based on discussion with the
ethics commission, they tend to look at the technical aspect and would
say that that is not a problem.
And you may recall, Commissioners, that the problem, or this
issue, did not come up particularly or initially with this advisory
committee but actually came up with Conservation Collier with some
people that were applying to have a contractual relationship or hoping
to have one with the county. So that put us on guard that there was an
issue, and then we started looking to see if there were other
committees that had that issue, and so it wasn't through any improper
action by anyone of this committee whatsoever that brought it to our
attention, and we tried to, with professional courtesy, indicate to them
the options that they might have so that they could, in fact, ultimately
fulfill their desire in regard to the grant agreement as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I am personally very
concerned about any pattern which is established where an advisory
committee would apply for a grant, then resign from the committee to
accept the grant, and then turn around and rejoin the committee at
some future point in time.
It leaves the appearance that we're circumventing the state ethics
law, and I certainly don't want to be a party to that.
So I'd like to at least investigate some ways we can solve that
problem. We -- and this is not picking on the -- the CRA board. We
had two other board members in a different board who had similar
situations, and we had to take the same action against those people.
Page 251
March 22-23, 2005
So it's a potentially serious problem, and I'd just like to keep out
of any ethical entanglements for ourselves as well as for board
members.
Now, Bill Neal is here. And, Bill, if you would like to address us
or tell us anything -- I'm sorry. I'm not the chairman, but let --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for filling in though, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me just continue for a minute.
I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about this, but there was just
a discussion about the contract for the new executive director, and
Commissioner Halas was concerned about the fact that somebody had
made a decision to work out some details with him and committed
some money to pay for expenses without talking with the party that's
supposed to hire and sign the contract.
And I am -- I have similar concerns because there has been a real
breakdown between us and the advisory board. And I know that
there's been a long history of dissatisfaction with the staffs support
here with the advisory board, and I -- we've got to find a better way to
operate because, you know, when your executive director walked off
the job, we got blamed for the problem, and when we're not available
to have a meeting and you need to negotiate a contract with
somebody, then you have to do it, and then we're wondering why you
didn't talk with us first.
So we need to -- we need to solve this problem. This is the
weirdest working relationship I have ever seen in my life. Either we
need to start meeting more frequently and interfacing with the CRA
more frequently and closer, or else we need to give them more latitude
to make decisions they need to make to get this thing moving along.
And I would like to ask, if the board agrees, to ask the county
attorney to start looking into that to see if there is a way to solve the
problem, because this is atrocious. It really is.
We've got people who are trying to develop an area in our
community that we all agree needs some work, yet we meet once a
Page 252
March 22-23, 2005
quarter. That's not frequent enough to either supervise what's being
done or to exercise any control over expenditures or hiring.
And I'm also not sure that meeting more frequently is the answer.
I think giving somebody more responsibility to make some decisions
consistent with the law, so you're going to have to advise us of that.
But I just think it's a terrible working relationship, and I think it's
fraught with opportunities for conflict of interest not only for the
commissioners, but for some of the board members, particularly when
grants are concerned, and it's not getting the job done for them. So
that's my spiel.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I agree. I think we should be giving
them more autonomy, yes. And I'm glad that David will look into
that. Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I'll be happy to, and I'll add that it's even
difficult for us. We have to be kind of like mirror attorneys because
we're attorneys to the CRA board, and, of course, I'm attorney to the
Board of County Commissioners as well. So the interlocal agreement
that's coming through is reviewed by two different attorneys for two
different agencies. And it -- and yet you are the same at the top. But
your interests actually could conflict from time to time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Exactly. We shouldn't -- we
should not be in this --
MR. WEIGEL: So I'd like to continue this dialogue with you and
provide some suggestion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. I think that that's great.
Now, we do have -- we do have this item to vote on; is that
correct? Okay.
So I'd like to make a motion, please, that we honor this grant and
pay -- Ms. King, you should stand up there, Sharon, so everybody can
see you.
MS. KING: I have a piece of paper.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I would like to hear a second on that.
Page 253
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
And thanks for all you do for that community, Sharon. We're
going to miss you like crazy.
Bill, would you like to say a few words on behalf of the CRA
advisory board?
MR. NEAL: I'm Bill Neal, chairman of the CRAB.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You need to say that into a microphone.
MR. NEAL: I'm Bill Neal, president of your CRAB. I'll be
happy to answer questions. The reason I got over here was I was
concerned of the misunderstanding that the county commissioners
have about the CRA.
And thank you, Commissioner Coyle, or CRA Coyle. I'll just
call you Fred in that case, because I'm not talking to the
commissioners now. I'm talking to the CRA.
We talked with you some months ago, probably a year ago, about
the problem of the county commissioners and the CRA being one and
the same. It causes a terrible working relationship. There's very few
ways we know how to get to you to talk to you as commissioners and
a CRA board.
I heard Frank mention the fact that he hadn't been notified about
any of this. We have a vehicle. Your vehicle is the chairman of the
Page 254
March 22-23, 2005
CRA, in this case, Donna Fiala, which we constantly communicate
with her through e-mails and telephone calls.
Now, we don't know how to set up the communication channels
on our level. We try to do our best through her. Whether you have
meetings with the CRA or not, we don't know about it. You could
have them and we don't even know about it. So I'm saying that to
answer your questions. I'll be happy to explain more details about
that.
To Tom Henning who said something earlier about having the
same ground rules for county employees, this gentleman's not a
county employee. He's an employee of the CRA, and there is a
distinguishing point there.
So you can offer employees of the CRA a different package than
maybe the ground rules you have with the county. The CRA has the
right to do that.
As far as the organization's concerned, as I said to you earlier, we
tried to get you to consider re-establishing the CRA activity, putting it
into a public/private situation where the county commissioners are not
the CRA board.
At the time that we had that meeting, I think each one of you said
you saw a conflict of interest. I believe my memory serves me that
way. We need to take that action.
We have talked to Patrick White about this issue. There's a
subcommittee made up of myself and Bill Mears, and I've mentioned
this to Donna Fiala in a meeting, that we should change this
organization, and we think we found a vehicle through the ordinance
or the state law to do that.
So I would appreciate if David Weigel could be a part of this and
we can drag Patrick into the same thing again, and we present you
with what we think is a way to offer it if you're willing to do it.
We have so few communications, and little communications with
CRA. You should already know what the heck we're doing. How
Page 255
March 22-23, 2005
many of you attended a CRA meeting and CRAB meeting? Only one,
and I'm not picking on you. I'm just saying, the interest of what we're
trying to do in this blighted area does not have a reflection on Frank
Halas and Tom Henning and Jim Coletta. We're working in an area
with you two folks.
It is a conflict of interest when they have an opportunity to
support a hotel up in North Naples as compared to one here in this
blighted area that we're trying to improve. If I were a commissioner, I
would support my constituents up in North Naples and fight against
the CRA, which I'm a board member of. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm not picking on you, I'm just trying to explain to you the frustration.
And, Fred, you coined it very clearly. It is a frustrating thing for
this CRA. We're the first CRA in this county. County staff doesn't
know how to work with us. We don't know how to work with the
county staff. There is a conflict there. We should resolve that issue
somehow. And the only way I know how to do it is to have an
independent CRA board made up of public and private citizens to do
that.
I hope that answers some of the questions you're concerned
about.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not really. When it comes to
communications, I would think that in your office you have a
computer so that you can periodically put out news bulletins and
what's going on, and I think that's where the line of communication
isn't -- it's a responsibility for the CRA, even though we're not tied
directly to it, but that's one way of communication.
The other concern I have is the other director that left, and then
we find out that we've got all of these bills that weren't paid or
anything else, and I think that there had -- should have been a line of
communication there also.
And when you were in the process of going through the choice of
who you were going to replace the prior CRA director in your CRA, it
Page 256
,.,--,.."~"~..,,.,~_...-_.._,.."'''_'._'' ...."-^--"'..^""'_.~..._--,--_..-.._.,.._..""
March 22-23,2005
would have been nice if you or somebody in that area would have
said, we're looking for a director and we're going through the process
of -- process of interviewing and we're trying to find the best person
available.
The first indication that I got that there might be somebody that's
been hired is the fact that, oh, by the way, it was Friday afternoon that
somebody wanted to come in and see me, and I had a full schedule
and I had a full schedule yesterday.
And the -- he was already hired, okay, and he was on the job, and
I -- to me, that just didn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling, and I hope
that you people have a computer over there that you can e-mail us and
just -- if you have just a secretary just to drop a few lines and she can
be your acting PIO person so that it kind of keeps us in contact of
what's going on.
We're here as commissioners, and we're here also to make sure
that we protect the taxpayers' dollar and that everything is being done
correctly, okay? And it just -- I'd like to have that warm, fuzzy
feeling, I'd like to have that contact so that we, you know, have some
time type of dialogue.
MR. NEAL: I appreciate that, Frank.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. NEAL: And I would say to you this, we are running a
business there, and the computer was shut down for almost 30 days,
and the bills weren't paid for almost 30 days because of a glitch
between the county and the CRA activity. We had no
communications. We didn't even have a telephone for, I think it was
two weeks, because somebody in the county -- and I'm not trying to
blame anybody. When Aaron Blair left, allo -- everything was cut off
automatically. Communications, cut off.
As a matter of fact, Jim Mudd helped me very much to get it
back on-stream. So we didn't have a lot of communications going on
at the time through this crisis period.
Page 257
March 22-23, 2005
I'm saying to you again that I personally e-mailed from my own
computer virtually everything we were doing, and some of it to Mr.
Coyle, and a lot of it -- most -- all of it to Donna Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you know, I can do a better job, too.
You know, Frank, I'm glad you brought this stuff up because
communications is terribly important to all of us, and we've been all,
you know, stressing how much we need to communicate. And I will
do a better job myself. I read all of the stuff, and I haven't passed it on,
and I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not your responsibility. I mean,
I think that would be to their avail, and I'm not sure why the bills --
MR. NEAL: No, I disagree with you, Mr. Halas. She's the
chairman of the CRA. We're an advisory board, a volunteer board.
She is this gentleman's boss, not the CRAB.
So what we do is work through the chairman of the CRA. That is
our job. And the chairman has to work with the board, just like as an
advisory chairman I work with my board. All the communications do
not go through every advisory board committee, but we do sum up and
have meetings about that.
So -- but the point there is, again, is there is a problem of the
organization, and we should resolve that as a CRA. I would hope you
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that it be
reorganized and on a different basis. I would appeal that to you as a
CRA members.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I think Commissioner Coyle has
directed the county attorney to talk with you and to start researching
that, and then get back to us with a plan. Is that correct,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't direct him, I just suggested
that the board might wish to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If there's three nods on this board.
Page 258
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Do we have any nods? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got mine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, just so you know -- and I don't
have somebody financial doing this thing right now -- but you're going
to have to approve the expenditures as the Board of County
Commissioners, okay, or the bill is not going to get paid by the clerk.
So I just want to make sure, you're still going to have to see it, but
you'll be as a board, and the CRA board, however it's done, you'll still
have to see that final action before the clerk cuts the check.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's very true. And I'm sure David
will incorporate that into his recommendations.
MR. WEIGEL: You bet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. NEAL: Any more questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. And we had a motion. We approved
paying Sharon. We have a speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes. You have one speaker, Sharon King.
MS. KING: Hello, Sharon King. I had a couple things that I had
wanted to mention. Number one, I was involved -- I resigned on
March 1 st from the CRAB. Prior to that, I had had a lot to do with
searching for an employee to replace the executive director and also to
try and keep the office up, you know, after we left our ex-executive
director.
Mr. Mudd attended one of our meetings and directed me to move
everything through Randy Cohen in the county, that he was the county
liaison. And I kept him informed of the hiring process, Mr. Halas, of
the interview process, as well as Donna Fiala, the chairman.
So if Randy didn't forward that to the commissioners, I didn't --
that was the avenue that Mr. Mudd had instructed me to pursue, so I
assumed you all were getting everything with regard to the movement
Page 259
March 22-23, 2005
that we were making. And I apologize if you didn't.
The second thing was I wanted to say something with regard to
the application. First of all, thank you for approving my application
for a grant.
You had mentioned that this is a problem, and Mr. -- I'm sorry--
MR. WEIGEL: Weigel.
MS. KING: -- Weigel, I'm sorry -- had said that possibly the
advisory committee should be treated like county employees where
you didn't get back on a committee for two years.
I know when this was brought to my attention that the county felt
my request for an application was unethical, I personally didn't agree
with that. I did agree their solution was for me to leave the committee,
apply for the grant, and then rejoin the committee.
Now, in my mind, that didn't sit right. That felt unethical to me,
and it won't be a problem for me trying to rejoin this committee.
I do think -- Chairman Fiala said that you're going to have
problems, you know, getting a certain type of people on this
committee. I think people are forgetting what this grant does. This
grant is for improvement to the area, site improvement, to any
property owner, any business located in the CRA area.
Now, you seem to feel that a member of the board could cause a
problem by applying for a grant. It's impossible. You know, there's
no limit -- we're limited financially with regard to our budget, but one
grant is not approved over another.
The purpose of the grant is to improve site -- you know, the
properties within the area. And if a member were to improve their
property, that's what the grant was supposed to do. That's how it's
supposed to work.
Any property owner, doesn't matter, as long as the property is
being improved, you're getting done what the grant program was set
up to do, you know. So I don't think in the future by putting
conditions on members who serve on the board -- first of all, you're
Page 260
March 22-23, 2005
looking for all types of citizens from this area. You're looking for all
economic levels. You're looking at business owners, property owners,
all different degrees of people in this area.
You know, you're going to find out that the people that can serve
on this committee are people like Mr. Neal, you know, who live in
Windstar, as Donna said, that don't need to improve their properties.
Now, I take great pride in improving my property and try and set
an example for the neighborhoods in our areas, and I don't see how an
advisory board member could create something unethical by going
through the same procedure, you know, that any other property owner
or business owner could do in this area.
Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. Oops, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay.
Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have completed our business for the
CRA?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the CRA board meeting is adjourned.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest at
this particular juncture that we recess to continue this meeting until
nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
Item #15
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That sounds wonderful. Do you
have anything left to say, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager?
Page 261
March 22-23, 2005
MR. MUDD: I wasn't getting into the communication piece. I
figured you'd find out something tomorrow you'd like to talk about at
the end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I want to do it tonight.
MR. MUDD: I don't have anything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've spent all of my travel
fund on -- and I need to find out if there's a commissioner that would
assist -- I've got a couple of -- right now I'm minus -- $239 in hole.
And I also plan to go to Tallahassee with our transportation
director, Norm Feder, in the end of the month, so that's going to be
some more money, and I also have an EDC item that I'd like to attend,
and that -- of course, that's like 25 or $30. So I'm sorry that I've
expended my $4,000 and I'm only half way into the year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you've really worked hard,
and that's why.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This sounds like the sheriffs office.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much do we have left?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know what the rest of you
have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have $1,000 of mine, Sue.
I was supposed to take a course and --
MS. FILSON: That's what I was going to ask. What about
leadership?
Page 262
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, it's being
postponed.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner
Henning. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I hear any more offers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. He can have some of mine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, maybe I shouldn't
offer up 1,000.
MS. FILSON: Can you tell me how much so that I can work on
my budget?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Change mine to five.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Better start out with him, and
then --
MS. FILSON: Five?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
MS. FILSON: Okay. He's changed his mind. You get 500 from
Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five hundred from him, and you can
throw in another 50 bucks in for me. Give him 1,000.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that enough?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That will keep me out of trouble
for a while.
MS. FILSON: He'll be back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have to review your
overtime, or your travel budget.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Here it is right here.
MS. FILSON: And I don't have the balance on the other
Page 263
March 22-23, 2005
commissioners, Commissioner Fiala, as you asked.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need budget guidance on this.
Commissioner Coletta?
MS. FILSON: But I knew his was running short, so I balanced it
out, and I can give it to you if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's running short? Who else is
running short?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Me? Can't be.
MS. FILSON: No. He was over, that's why I gave him a
balance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, he shouldn't be over without
notifying.
MS. FILSON: I'll give you all a balance later this week.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. .
MS. FILSON: Probably not tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Manana.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, I have something very brief
I'd like to get your permission to do. You will recall that we have
been discussing the budget guidance with other constitutional officers.
I have received a letter from the sheriff who says that he doesn't
believe that the slice of the pie is the appropriate way to do this -- this
budgeting process and would like instead to have certain indexes of
performance established. I presume that means in comparison with
other counties of similar size.
And I would -- I think it would be worthwhile looking at that,
and I would like to send a letter to the productivity committee asking
them if they would come up with some appropriate measures of
performance, cost performance, as a matter of fact. There's no
obligation that the board has to accept them or approve them. But
would the board object if I at least send them a letter asking them to
take a look at this?
Page 264
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that we pretty much--
pretty much told -- or made it known, even at the productivity
committee, that -- and there was representatives from the sheriffs staff
there, that we told them that we expected them to operate within the
pie, and that was 39.6 percent of the pie.
And we just had a meeting here about a week ago, and it was
pretty much expressed by all members of the productivity committee,
along with myself, that that was the arena that we needed to make sure
that we could stay in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And -- so at this point in time, I
guess we'll have to find out how much additional ad valorem taxes we
have and whether the sheriff can maintain to stay within that budget,
so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm not suggesting that any
amounts be defined at all. I'm just suggesting that performance
measures be established vis-a-vis other counties, because it would be
helpful for us to have that even if we stayed with the slice of the pie
concept so that we could begin to evaluate the budgeting process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we already have that
somewhat established, the performance measures if we look at -- if we
compare ourselves with the five other counties that the county
manager has already picked, and that's pretty much performance
measures, I would think.
Now, if you feel that maybe those aren't the right counties or
whatever, I'm sure that when this was introduced to the productivity
committee, that they approved the counties that were selected.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. They -- the productivity
committee discussed some time ago getting involved in the
development of certain indicators of performance in the sheriffs
department, and they had some pretty good ideas, and I think they
were ideas that we haven't really explored.
Page 265
March 22-23, 2005
And I -- the reason I was suggesting this is that if they have the
time and if they're interested in pursuing this, then we could at least
cooperate with the sheriff in taking a look at these things and seeing if
they're reasonable, and we might -- we might find that they're very
useful to evaluate the budgeting process or other kinds of things to
help the sheriff and us reach a conclusion on certain issues that, so far,
have been open to debate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think that the -- you,
yourself, you've served as the liaison last year, and I think that the
short period of time that I've been on the productivity committee,
they're open for all kinds of ideas, and if it benefits the taxpayers here
in Collier County, I'm sure all of us are -- that's what our main goal is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Does that mean it's
okay to send a letter?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can see what it looks like.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, I think it's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you don't like it--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's a great idea. I mean, but
-- I just wanted to clear the air to make sure that we had an
understanding about performance measures, but I think this is above
and beyond what the county manager has instructed us to do, and
anything that may assist our relationship with the sheriff, I think, is
great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So long as he understands--
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if you take a look
at the productivity committee, the letter on the budget guidance that
they came back with, they talk about performance indicators as one
thing that we need to get -- to improve on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good, good. That's it for me, so
anything else from anybody?
Page 266
March 22-23, 2005
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I think we do, before you hang up, and
I'm going to -- one alibi. We were going to talk about Burnt Tree
Road and the signal at Royal Poinciana.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we do that tomorrow?
MR. MUDD: You want to do that tomorrow?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can, or we can just tell them, hey, set
a date and communicate with the city. Is that all we've got to do?
MR. MUDD: Yeah. I talked to Mr. Feder about that earlier, and
Mr. Feder's here to address it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no, no, no.
MR. MUDD: No, no, no. He's just going to give you the date.
He's going to tell you what the date is, okay, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: Because I told him to fine tune his pencil, and
please stress that with the board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Finish that tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, let's finish up tomorrow.
Everybody's saying this is enough today, so let's finish it up tomorrow,
and we'll be done.
Thank you very much. We're adjourned
(Meeting recessed at 6:52 p.m, and will continue at 9:00 a.m. on
March 23, 2005.)
THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:00 A.M. ON
.wEillffiSI)A Y, MARCH 2~, 200~
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr.
Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Would you please stand with me for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Page 267
March 22-23,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to go directly to Item 7(A).
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, this is a
continuation from the 22nd March BCC meeting. And it was -- and
we've stated a couple of times on the record today that we would
continue a couple items from yesterday's agenda to this morning.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2005-132: CU-04-AR-6278, DOMINICK AMICO
OF AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING
THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE FOR A COMMUNITY PARK AS AN
ESSENTIAL SERVICE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.01.03.G.3.A
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TO
CONSTRUCT A COMMUNITY PARK WITH 75 BOAT
TRAILER PARKING SPACES, 21 VEHICULAR PARKING
SPACES, AND A BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY ON AN
UNDEVELOPED TRACT OF LAND. IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY, THE PETITIONER WISHES
TO CONSTRUCT A PAVILION WITH PLAYGROUND, A
FISHING PLATFORM, AND BOAT DOCKS. THE PROPERTY
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE IS
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF GOODLAND
DRIVE WEST IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE
27 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY (GOODLAND), FLORIDA-
The first item on our agenda is 7(A). This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. It's Conditional Use 04-AR-6278, Dominick
Page 268
March 22-23, 2005
Amico of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc., representing the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners, requesting approval of a
conditional use for a county park as an essential service, pursuant to
Section 2.01.03.G.3.A of the Land Development Code to construct a
community park with 75 boat trailer parking spaces, 21 vehicular
parking spaces and a boat launch facility on an undeveloped tract of
land.
In conjunction with the boat launch facility, the petitioner wishes
to construct a pavilion with playground, a fishing platform and boat
docks.
The property to be considered for the conditional use is located at
the southern terminus of Goodland Drive West in Section 18,
Township 52 South, Range 27 East, in Collier County, Goodland,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, County Manager.
We'll have ex parte disclosure by the County Commissioners.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I've had meetings,
correspondence and e-mails, and I've also talked with staff on it. And
I've had some phone calls also on the subj ect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, the same.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was on the Reddy Red Stier
show with Marla Ramsey talking about this proposal and received
some phone calls and e-mails and general mail type of
correspondence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I've received plenty of
mail on this, as well as I've had meetings and correspondence and
e-mails and telephone calls and have attended meetings down in
Page 269
March 22-23, 2005
Goodland to listen in on those things. They've called on me here, as
well as in my Marco office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
And I have also received letters and e-mail, telephone calls, I've
met with people on both sides of this issue, and I've talked with staff
about it. And all of these public records are in my file for review, if
anyone wishes to see them.
We're ready to go with the staff presentation? Oh, we want to
swear everyone in, please. Everyone who is going to participate in
offering testimony for this hearing, please stand and be sworn in.
(All speakers duly sworn.)
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl
with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, representing the Board of County
Commissioners. Also here from ABB is Dominick Amico, if you have
any engineering questions. And from the county, there is Marla
Ramsey and other staff from Parks and Recreation Department, if you
have questions for them.
This request is for a conditional use for a community park as an
essential service. As you see on the visualizer, it's located at the
southern portion of Goodland. And the zoning on it is VRGZO,
village residential with a Goodland zoning overlay.
And the future land use element shows that it is within the urban
coastal fringe, which is a transitional area between conservation and
the urban area.
And the Parks and Recreation Department, as directed by
yourselves, wishes to construct a community park, including --
including boat ramps and pavilion, playground, fishing platform and
some perimeter docks.
The plan that you see on the visualizer contains spaces for 75
boat trailer parking spaces and 21 vehicular parking spaces.
The main thing to consider on this conditional use is that for a
public boat launch facility, this parcel of land is owned by the county
Page 270
.~... "._.~_._---<,-...-.,~."""_.""._._....."..,."- '. ^ "...._~-
March 22-23, 2005
and it has deep water access. Those are the two -- the two major
points.
The findings for a conditional use include four findings:
Consistency. As I said, it's within the urban coastal fringe, the
transition between urban and conservation. Seems like an ideal place
to put something where people from -- who live in the urban area
come to recreate in the conservation area by using the boat launch, as
well as the rest of the park facilities.
The zoning is VR, which is mostly low profile, small building
footprint residences, and it also allows community parks as a
conditional use.
The second finding is the ingress and egress. There's one access
point to the site, which is up here, Goodland Drive West.
As brought up through the neighborhood info meeting and the
planning commission meeting, boat trailer traffic is a concern, and
that's something that has to be balanced.
One of the things that staff came up with, and we have no
problem with this at all, is a sign located out on 92 that would let the
people driving the boats in know that the lot is full, similar to that up
at Wiggins Pass. And that would be controlled electronically from the
staff manning the gate at the park.
There's also more pedestrian traffic in Goodland than a lot of
other areas in Collier County, and that was a concern. We think that
this sign will help avoid trailers coming in when the lot is full, having
to turn around and go back out, thus minimizing the boat trailer traffic.
The third finding is noise, glare, odor and economic effects. The
prime use of this site will be during the weekend. And again, that is
also the same time that residents will be home from their weekday
jobs. However, the main use of the boat launch facility will be
morning and evening. It's not going to be a continuous activity
throughout the day. Usually morning launching and evening coming
back in.
Page 271
March 22-23, 2005
And the fourth finding is compatibility. And county staff found
that the project is compatible with the surrounding land use at a
number of 50 boat trailers. The original petition is for 75, which was
the maximum number that we could put on there to maximize the use
by boat trailers. Staff found that 50 was more compatible with the
surrounding area. The planning commission agreed with county staff
and said that 50 was more compatible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, Fred, is this picture with
50 in it?
MR. REISCHL: No, that's with 75.
The Goodland Civic Association recommended 36 spaces. As
you see coming forward to you, we're coming with the 75 spaces.
That's what Parks and Rec had said was the direction from you. We're
willing to listen to whatever direction you want to go in today.
The neighborhood information meeting was held on October 14th
at Mackie Park. About 100 people were there. Traffic impacts and --
traffic impacts was the major concern. Some people also spoke that
they preferred condominiums on the site instead of a park.
The planning commission voted 6-2 to recommend approval with
50 trailer spaces. They also recommended a -- this is a conceptual
plan, but they recommended more of a cul-de-sac here so that if
trailers do come all the way down there, it would be easier for them to
turn around without going through the whole loop of the park.
And there was also discussion which, from my recollection was
not settled at the hearing, for a sidewalk on one side. As you see, the
sidewalk coming off Goodland Drive is along the north portion, which
will go to the amenities that most pedestrians would go to, not
including a sidewalk along here, which is basically a boat trailer
driveway. And that was discussed at the planning commission also.
So in conclusion, staff recommends approval with 50 trailers --
oh, excuse me, the two dissent -- the vote at the planning commission
was 6-2 for the 50 spaces. The two dissenting votes thought that 36
Page 272
March 22-23, 2005
trailer spaces would be more appropriate at the site. And that's where
we conclude this. Fifty recommended by the planning commission,
75, maximize the site, as recommended by Parks and Rec Department.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No questions. Thank you very much.
Staff presentation?
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray Bellows
with your Planning and Zoning Department.
Petitioner has covered pretty much what I was going to say, did a
very good job of explaining the project. The planning commission did
vote 6-2 to recommend approval. The Comprehensive Planning
Department's recommending approval. There are no environmental
issues, so I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Bellows, I still don't
understand the issue of why the recommendations of 50 parking
spaces.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, I was contacted by numerous residents
of Goodland with concerns about too much boat launching facility and
not enough park space, based on the current proposed plans.
I discussed the issue with my landscape architect on staff, Nancy
Siemion, and we worked together to provide some more green space
to meet code requirements for landscaping. As you can see on the
visualizer, the center of the boat parking spaces doesn't meet code for
parking, trees -- and tree islands.
We also had concern about traffic circulation, and we came up
with a draft plan. And then counting up the spaces on a plan that met
the landscape requirements ended up around 50. That was what we
felt was an appropriate design that allowed for more park, more green
space, more trees. And that's what the planning commission basically
Page 273
March 22-23, 2005
upheld.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we changing how we
review conditional uses and PUD requests or amendments and doing
site plan at the time of application?
MR. BELLOWS: No, sir, Commissioner Henning. This is a
typical process that is done on most projects.
Many times the petitioner submits something that's not quite
consistent with codes, and during the review process we work those
things out. However, due to time constraints, the petitioner did not
have time to modify the plans consistent with county staff
requirements, and they decided to bring the petition before you as is
and let you make the final decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying it's typical to
review site plans at rezone?
MR. BELLOWS: Well this isn't a -- excuse me, this isn't a
typical site plan, this is a conceptual plan submitted with a conditional
use. It's kind of like a mini master plan, a little more detailed. It's still
not a site plan. They still have to go through the site development
plan process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And would that be the
time to catch any deficiency of the Land Development Code?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, with the conditional use, we're dealing
with the use of the land and the use primarily dealing with the boat
launching facility. And the concern of the residents was there were
too many boat launching spaces. And that's part of the use of the land
that we felt that we had to address at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I just need to
understand the process, because I don't believe that we're consistent
with all applications. And I think when government's not consistent,
it's not reliable.
And I'm sure you based your decisions or your recommendations
Page 274
March 22-23, 2005
under certain law that the Board of County Commissioners adopted,
and I just haven't seen any -- seen anything in the recommendations
that is based on factual information.
And, you know, the -- are you concerned about traffic circulation
within -- on the island, or are you concerned about traffic on site?
MR. BELLOWS: Staff is concerned about both on-site
circulation and the result of traffic backing up at an entrance with 75
boat stalls.
If you look at the traffic impact statement submitted by the
petitioner, there's an example of what the -- and I think I have a copy
of that here -- of what the typical car trailer hookup will be. And
during the peak hour of movements in and out of there, there is
concern that while waiting for the queue to let up, that a normal
instance would be that, take a tour through the community and come
back around and see if the line has let up.
That was something the residents really expressed a lot of
concern about to me. I've met with over 20 of them, and they had a lot
of concern about traffic going through the community.
The average length of a trailer and car is approaching 40 feet, and
that's not even a full size -- there are -- the boats, there are some that
will be larger. And the movements in and out of there with 75 spaces
seemed tight. And given the fact that they were not meeting the
landscape requirements between the parking spaces, we felt that we
would try to provide some guidance on how to better meet the code.
And that's something that we typically do as suggestions. The
petitioner is free to agree to those or disagree and come to the board
with their recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So part of your -- because of
your recommendations, the concerns was that boaters with trailers
would be -- because of the back-up at the ramp would be touring --
leaving the facility and touring?
MR. BELLOWS: And the entrance point, too.
Page 275
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's based on what expert
-- I mean, I just have a problem with your recommendations. It's not
based on planning -- good planning decisions. And if this concern is
about traffic within the neighborhood, then I think we need to hear
from the experts in our traffic department and what their
recommendations are and if that is a true valid concern.
I can tell you, being a boater, why would I go touring when my
goal is to go fishing? Or the goal is to go out in the water. My goal is
to get prepared for putting my vessel in the water.
MR. BELLOWS: The staffs primary concern was that the
parking lot meet county landscape requirements. The plan before you
today does not. That was the primary concern of redoing the parking
spaces, and that resulted in a less number.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I hope --
MR. BELLOWS: The side issue was the parking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope in the future we do site
planning at rezone.
MR. BELLOWS: I believe we try to work with the applicants to
get a plan that's brought to you that is consistent with the code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if we're going to do that,
then maybe we could cut down the process of site development plan
reVIew.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before I begin, has Mr. Bellows
got a presentation he was going to make? I didn't want to get in front
of that. Or is he just here to answer questions now?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the petitioner pretty much covered
everything and I didn't have anything else to add.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I share Commissioner
Henning's concerns also. Back on February 24th and even before that
we were talking about 75 spaces when we were making our decisions,
based upon, you know, what was going to happen, how it was all
Page 276
March 22-23, 2005
coming together.
And back in February 24th, meeting then, Ms. Ramsey was
quoted as saying, well, honestly every park site has been done in the
past has been inadequately (sic). We have Bayview that is currently --
I think it's 42 parking spaces there. I think there's about 20 -- about
half of those are boat parking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nineteen at Bayview.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just quoting what she said.
It doesn't mean --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, that's -- she's just shaking
her head it's 19.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And, we'll bring her up
in a minute, she can correct it.
About half of these are boat parking. They're parking all the way
up and down the road, all the way out to Fern. We have not done as a
county a very good job of providing parking that goes with the boat
access area in any of these facilities. It probably was adequate 20
years ago when we built these but we are now growing and have 1,200
people trailering their boats and we are in a deficit. This was back in
February of'04.
According to the national standards, we're about 27 ramps in
deficit. Will we ever make them up? Probably not. But I think the
goal that the Park Department has, as the rest of the county, is to take
the existing and try to enhance the existing, looking for some
additional locations and trying to ease the pain that we see coming.
The thing I'm concerned about is, would I feel bad if it was -- if
the parking spaces were reduced when this originally came to us and
we were going forward with it and that was the understanding? I'd
probably understand it. But I think the commission direction was to
try to maximize this as much as possible and still maintain something
for the residents.
We paid a small fortune of the taxpayers money for this. I don't
Page 277
March 22-23, 2005
think at anyone point in time this is going to be utilized on a
continuous basis. It's going to be -- but the times that it's going to be
needed, the holidays when people get a chance to recreate, those extra
spaces are going to mean that many more happy campers out there
that have paid their fees, paid their taxes, and would like a reasonable
chance to be able to have access to the water.
I personally am not excited at all about cutting the spaces down.
I have no problem with providing green areas as far as dedicating so
many of them to be -- what's the word there, green areas, overflow
parking where it could be used -- so it can maintain the ambiance of
the area. Maybe keep them green, use those like -- tiles on the ground
so the grass can grow through it and be able to use that at times that
are needed for the abundance when we reach the full 75 parking
places, and still be able to maintain something that gives a real nice
appearance from the street.
I think that would be an excellent idea to be able to do that. In
fact, I don't know if it's even practical to do the whole area like that.
But that's my feeling on it. I really do want to be able to provide for
the public in the best way possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we got into this discussion
because I think there was a question as to whether or not it was
appropriate to be dealing with a detailed site plan at this point in time.
I'd just like to offer some comments concerning this.
It's entirely possible we just deal with the conditional use today
and not deal with the site plan at all today. But that means it's going
to come back to us whenever there is going to be a dispute about how
many parking spaces you have programmed for this site.
So I think from a standpoint of making sure the public is
completely informed, it behooves us to make a decision what the
density is going to be here. It doesn't necessarily mean that we have
to decide on what the actual density is going to be, but we should at
least put a maximum on it.
Page 278
March 22-23, 2005
And I understand Commissioner Coletta saying he would like to
maximize it to the extent possible to provide for as many spaces as we
can.
So if the commissioners -- and Commissioner Henning wants to
make a comment about this -- but what I'm really asking is, if we
proceed with the discussion, the commissioners can make motions
which incorporate whatever stipulations they wish on the conditional
use, so we can deal with that and deal with commissioners' concerns
through the process of the conditional use and the motions to approve
or deny it.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, my only
point is consistency. And the Board of Commissioners don't review
site development plans. I mean, that's a -- that's something that the
City of Naples does is the finite uses of it, and I just think it's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I just don't like this
process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I guess my feeling is that I'm not sure
I'm reviewing or approving a site development plan. I'm approving a
conditional use with some maximum intensity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, that's all I think we're doing
here. We might find that this plan is not acceptable at all, I guess. The
staff might find that to be the case. But I have no desire to get into
planning this park either today. But I think we need to attach some
maximum intensity to this issue when or if we approve it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree. I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If not, I'll go to the public speakers.
How many do we have, Sue?
Page 279
March 22-23, 2005
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have 22.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, 22. We'll have three minutes
each.
There was one gentleman who approached me earlier and said he
thought that he was in the minority and he was going to oppose this.
He'd like to have a few minutes.
How many people are opposing this particular -- okay, one, two
-- there's quite a few. So everybody's going to get three minutes,
okay?
So we'll start with the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: Do we want to instruct them to use both mics as
well ?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we would. If you will-- Ms. Filson
will call two names. If one of you will come to that mic and the other
one will line up at that mic, we can keep this moving fairly quickly.
As it is, we're going to be here for probably an hour and a half
listening to public testimony.
I would ask you to recognize that we have read your e-mails,
we've read your letters, we've met with you, we understand the
concerns. We've gotten letters from the homeowner associations in the
area. We have -- we are well aware of the opposition and support for
this particular proj ect.
So I would ask that you not be repetitious. But you will not be
denied the right to be heard. So we'll start with the first --
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Randy Ward. He will be
followed by Arthur Sweatman.
MR. WARD: Good morning. I'm Randy Ward with the Marine
Industries Association of Collier County. And we are definitely in
favor of maximizing this property. We paid four and a half million
dollars for it without the improvements. And as the Chairman said
yesterday, let's maximize our investment when we make it.
As far as boats driving around the neighborhood, I find that
Page 280
March 22-23, 2005
fascinating, because most people don't like to tow their trailers in a
straight line. The last thing they're going to do is go down streets that
they're not familiar with, because the worst thing that could happen to
them is to have to make a U-turn because they can't back them up
anyway.
The design criteria for a boat slip -- for a ramp is about one
launch every 10 minutes. The boaters in this county have become very
proficient at knowing when to be at the ramp so they don't have to
wait long. And they know the different ramps and they know what's a
good time to be there, whether it's very early or a little later in the
mornIng.
And I just find it incredible that they think -- you know, the
boaters are having a tough time. 22,000 boats in this county, 12,000
of them are on trailers. They need to go somewhere. I mean it's --
you know, we have the Gulf and we need to make it available to the
boaters.
The other thing is you -- in your plan you're talking about
removing the asphalt or concrete and using shells in the driveways. If
you start backing up on shells, I will tell you that your maintenance is
going to be incredible. You're going to be constantly filling in holes,
because people turn their wheels and literally dig a hole in the asphalt
-- in the -- the paver idea, the paver blocks work great. I've seen that
in a number of boat ramps. I've used them in projects where we've
had to have access for fire engines, so they're plenty strong enough
and the grass grows up through them and they look very nice.
So for the association and personally, as a certified marina
manager, I feel that we need -- we definitely need to maximize this
investment. There's another park there but, you know, four and a half
million dollars plus the improvements, we need to maximize it. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Mike Barbush. The other
Page 281
March 22-23, 2005
gentleman was speaking on something else, so that you know. He'll
be followed by Joe Ludwig.
MR. BARBUSH: Hi, Jim. Good morning, Commissioners, nice
to see you again. I'm Mike Barbush, I live at 690 Palm Avenue West
in Goodland. I live one block from the subject property.
As past president of the Goodland Civic Association, I was
involved in the initial discussions with Marla Ramsey and Parks and
Rec regarding the park. I urge you to approve the conditional use for
this property with the intention of building a community park and a
boat launch facility.
This property is located in a residential neighborhood, so please
consider the unique nature of life in Goodland in your deliberations.
I urge you to follow the recommendations of staff and the
planning commission for a maximum of 50 trailer parking spaces, 30
car parking spaces with more green space and enhanced landscaping.
We do not need sidewalks on Goodland Drive West. And for the sake
of the immediate neighbors, limit the use from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
with a gated facility and attendants on the water side and at the gate.
Install an information sign on State Road 92 to indicate if the park is
full.
A well-staffed facility will benefit all of Collier County and those
of us in Goodland. As development pressures engulf the county,
Goodland has been spared, so far.
Now that the county is a major landowner in Goodland with the
acquisition of Margood Resort and the park, please be a good
neighbor.
We share Goodland with county residents and visitors from all
around the world at our businesses and restaurants, especially Stan's
on Sunday, and we welcome you.
I finished work early the other day and took off on the boat to
fish the grass flats off of Cape Romano. The peaceful solitude and the
beautiful surroundings are truly a gift from God, and it's a gift that we
Page 282
March 22-23, 2005
can share. I thought about the poor souls stuck in traffic at rush hour
while I was out there floating in Gullivan Bay. I am fortunate enough
to be a Goodland resident and have this available to me, and they
should also be able to share in this experience. A properly run and
maintained facility will benefit everyone.
Goodlanders are fiercely dedicated to preserving our way of life,
and the emotion and testimony you will hear today is testament to
that.
This commission has always had a special bond with Goodland
and its preservation. The zoning overlay, Donna's tireless efforts on
our behalf, Commissioner Henning's help with the Army Corps
dredging project and Commissioner Coletta's involvement with the
clam revitalization are just a few examples. You've been very fair
with us in the past.
In conclusion, I urge you to support or to approval the
conditional use of this project while balancing the needs of the county
and preserving our unique lifestyle in Goodland. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Ludwig. He'll be
followed by Donald McCurdy.
MR. LUDWIG: I'm Joe Ludwig. I live at 611 East Palm Avenue
in Goodland.
I oppose the granting of the conditional use for this property. It
will only be one more commercial venture in Goodland. You're going
to have traffic inundating those roads. The road from 92 in is a
winding road. You're going to have to end up widening it. You have
a bike path there now . You're going to be cutting into the mangroves.
You're going to have more and more traffic. And as time goes on,
every year the pressure will increase for the traffic.
Goodland is going to lose the historic value that it has. It's going
to become just another yuppie community with a bunch of boats going
Page 283
March 22-23, 2005
in and out all the time.
I would like to make one other comment with respect to the
wishes of the people of Goodland. An objective poll, was about 92
percent in opposition to the boat ramps. The latest poll shows a slight
margin in favor of the boat ramps. The reason that happened was that
a large -- the reason that that happened was that the proponents of the
boat ramp floated the idea that Goodland was going to -- or that Palm
Point was going to be annexed by Marco. Not that it might be or
could be or maybe would be, but that it was a done deal, that when a
developer got it you were going to have annexation.
It was a scare tactic to change the tenor of the community with
respect to that. And you should know that and consider it, I think,
when you're voting on the appropriateness of this conditional use.
I know the county paid through the nose, four and a half million
-- whatever it was you laid out for that property. But whatever it was,
you can get it back. You can sell that property and get your money
back and put it to good use.
May -- everybody says 92. And then when it's raised, what has
come back was, well, 92 won't work because there's too much silt in
the water or whatever. But nobody has made a good study to
determine the appropriateness of 92. And as you know, there's all the
room in the world out there for that. I see my time's up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Donald McCurdy, and he will
be followed by a gentleman named Greg. He didn't give a last name
but he's on Palm Point Drive.
MR. McCURDY: I appreciate the opportunity to address the
commissioners. My name is Donald McCurdy. I live down on Palm
Avenue at the Point in the little condos out there.
There's a misstatement on the sign that's on the property down
there. It says community park as an essential service, including
providing public access for boating. As you can see from the drawing,
Page 284
March 22-23, 2005
it is all -- almost all boat park.
You paid 4.5 or something million for this. You've just
purchased Margood at two and a half million, so you now have seven
million invested in Goodland.
I watched the videos of the commissioners when they discussed
this when they went ahead with the approval. One commissioner
suggested selling the parcel, take the money and invest it.
As you know, the -- regardless of what caused the commission to
vote at the time, you are now in a very unique position to make some
major changes and contribute to successful boating in the southern
Collier area.
The logic is as follows: Property on Goodland, the little lots that
are 45 by 65 feet, are selling for $500,000. That's unbelievable. To
sell the park for six to eight million, with restrictions for residential
housing or architectural review can be attached to the sale, and it's
very conceivable that you can get the six to eight or maybe more for it
and keep it residential.
The Route 92 -- on the other side of Route 92, that Joe Ludwig
spoke of, has a possible boat possibility. Last year I talked to one of
the major partners in a design firm in the Naples area, and my
background is engineering and construction, so I had the conversation,
which was very difficult, but I finally got out how much would it cost
to dredge to do all of this. This firm does major work for Collier
County. They do bridges and roads and marinas and all of this. The
value that we came up with was less than a million dollars. You could
put 100 or 200 boats out there.
There is a problem. When you go to the dredging, if it is not a
suitable material, it has to be taken out and dumped 30 miles out.
Otherwise, it can be used for fill.
So my suggestion is that you authorize a study to be made, a
feasibility study, if you spend 50,000 or whatever it is, to make a
study for the use of boat ramps out on the other side of 92.
Page 285
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, sir, thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Greg Bello. He'll be followed
by Jo McCurdy.
MR. BELLO: I'm in favor of the park. I'm in favor of the use of
the boat launch we talked about, the possibility of 22,000 boaters in
Collier County that need access to the water. What I'm also in favor
of is keeping the density down to about 50.
The reason behind that is I talked with some of the dock masters
at some of the other county launch facilities and got some information
about the situation with cars backing up and positions on certain
holidays and certain good weather weekend days.
Basically, Goodland is approximately 2,000 feet across, and from
the entrance of Goodland by Stan's to the actual park it's closer to
1,000 feet. And if you do the math, and we look at roughly 50 feet per
car with trailer, and you consider 75 trailers, the problem with that
obviously is that you end up with a number of close to 4,000 linear
feet.
Now, is it likely that most of these people will show up at the
exact same time? Not really. However, there is going to be the use of
-- there's going to be a lot of people coming early in the morning.
So the reason people like myself would prefer a smaller number
and to have it more beautified so it that doesn't take away from our
island but instead compliments our island, is because of the fear that
the extra 25 trailers will create more of a road problem.
The other thing is, is that what they were talking about, the dock
masters, was some of the things we could help maximize and optimize
the number of spots would be to consider, you know, allowing the
park to be used by Collier County residents, since it is -- there is a
problem with a number of people trying to get on the water. So
instead of just opening it up to anybody from Broward and Dade
County, according to the dock master, often there's ten to twelve boats
coming from the other coast to use our waters.
Page 286
March 22-23, 2005
Well, that would again optimize and make our 50 lots more
efficient.
So basically, you know, I'm in favor of the park completely. We
would prefer it to be 50 over 75, and the reasons for it is to keep the
park beautified, to make it a compliment to our little island by 2,000
feet by 2,000 feet, and to make it to be not an inconvenience to the
people that live there.
My lot happens to be adjacent to the park, so we're going to be
directly affected by the traffic situation. However, we welcome the
park. We think that it's a good alternative, and we would just like for
to you consider, you know, the effects of the parking -- the number of
trailer spots so that we keep the park beautified and functional. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jo McCurdy. She'll be
followed by J.W. Douglas.
MS. McCURDY: Hi. I'm Jo McCurdy. I live at 611 East Palm
Avenue.
Most of you have heard about the conflict going on in Goodland.
And it may seem like a tempest in a teapot, but it isn't. The decision
you make will determine the life or death of this little community.
The residents are divided on their ideas of what would be the best
way to retain the unique living environment of this authentic little
Florida fishing village.
There's basically two groups. One supports the plan for boat
docks. It's called a park but in reality it's boat docks with a small park
area. And many of the people in this group have been told and believe
that if the five acres were sold to a developer, it would be annexed to
Marco.
The possibility of this happening is almost non-existent. But
even if it were true, there's a way to keep anything like that from
happening. As the county, as owners of the land, you can put deed
Page 287
March 22-23, 2005
restrictions on it. And if it were sold, these restrictions control what
the land was used for. The arguments that only boat slips will save
Goodland from annexation is not true.
The second group believes that boat owners will park in any open
space, as they do in every other boat launch area, and that cars and
boat trailers will be driving around Goodland, parking in residential
areas and waiting for a parking space to open at the boat launch.
They're also concerned about the traffic on the narrow road
leading into Goodland. This past weekend we counted 327 cars, 116
motorcycles and two sheriffs deputies parked along the road in just
the first mile. We couldn't count all the people, but estimated that
there were between 800 and 1,000.
What will happen when you have at least 76 boats and trailers
mingled with the cars, trucks, motorcycles and people already parked
on and wandering across Goodland streets?
The animosity between the two groups has created an atmosphere
here similar to Palestine and Israel. Why? Why does this have to
happen when everyone wants the same thing. All the people involved
want Goodland to stay the same. No one who lives on Goodland wants
a high-rise built there. And the people who haven't been misled and
frightened with annexation intimidation don't want a boat ramp either.
As was said earlier, if the county used the property, sold it, they
could make back the five million they paid, make another five million
to go towards building a boat launch that would actually help control
the problem. What you're doing is putting a Band Aid on a huge
problem. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is J. W. Douglas. He will be
followed by Allen Walburn.
MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
As one of the people most impacted by the project, since I live on
the road, I wish to state I want the land to be used for the purpose of a
Page 288
March 22-23, 2005
park and boat ramp.
Obviously, as a Goodland resident, I prefer to have a minimum
of boat parking places, but anything is better than building density.
It should be remembered that we can expect many visitors to the
area, apart from people with boats, to enjoy a day of fishing and
playing in the park.
As to increased boats and trailer traffic, I believe it will be
inconsequential compared with traffic generated by condominiums.
Currently, much heavier trucks hauling giant boats to and from
Walker's Marina are hardly noted. Goodland offers the chance of
getting away from the overcrowded condominium-ruled cities of
Florida, and in its rural aspect an attraction to visitors from all over the
country and beyond. This should be preserved.
One of the things I object to is the suggestion of putting curbs
along Goodland Drive West. Our overlay provides that we can park
our vehicles on the swale in front of our homes. We suffer from the
problem of only 50-foot widths, so parking is a real problem. Any
curbs will prohibit us from the protection we currently have. We do
not need sidewalks either. We like the way Goodland is already.
Goodland and the peace of Collier County need the open space of
this piece of land. The ocean waterfront history of Florida is a
disgrace to any civilized nation. It has permitted individuals and
corporations to block off access to the common property of the people;
namely, free access to the beaches.
When we came to Florida in the 1960's, we used to stop at Bonita
Springs with its beautiful miles of beaches. For 25 cents, one could
drive along a sandy track and park next to the ocean under shady
Australian pines. Now that whole area is built over.
In the 1970's, we could park anywhere along the seashore at
Marco. Now, after access to the beach is denied by condominiums
shoulder to shoulder along the beach, people of Goodland have to pay
$100 a year for the privilege of doing what used to be free.
Page 289
March 22-23, 2005
The days of the old United States have long gone when if you
didn't like what you saw, you could move further west or south, as the
case may be.
I ask you, preserve this tiny scrap of land so our descendants and
the inhabitants of Collier County can at least see the water. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Allen Walburn. He will be
followed by Nancy Simmons.
MR. WALBURN: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you
for allowing me to speak. My name is Allen Walburn. I live at 678
14th Avenue South in Naples, and I'm here on behalf of some of the
commercial operators and charter boat interests in Collier County.
Collier County was first settled, contrary to a lot of public
opinion, not for golf courses but for the water activities. As
development has taken hold in Collier County, public access has
declined substantially, not only in Collier County but throughout the
state. This is a problem that's being dealt with or being looked at all
across the state.
And it seems to me that you folks have a responsibility to try to
maintain the heritage of this county, which is a water-based county.
And maximizing the use of this particular park would go a long way to
creating or perpetrating that heritage that we all enjoy.
I think that you should look at not only this particular area but
throughout the county before it's too late.
I could certainly understand and am sympathetic to the property
owners that are at this particular site, but it's not unique to them.
We're all suffering the same consequences in one form or fashion.
I assure you, these folks are small potatoes compared to what
would happen if you tried to do the same thing at Bayview Park next
week. You would have an outcry from Royal Harbor, Port Royal and
Aqualane Shores that would silence these folks in two seconds.
So it's not unique to them, it's part of our county, and you have to
Page 290
March 22-23, 2005
address the needs of the masses at the detriment sometimes of a few.
Like I say, I'm sympathetic to their plight, but I don't know any
other solution. And I think that it's foolhardy to have this park and not
maximize the use for the benefit of the most.
As far as boats driving around looking for a parking place --
excuse me, not a parking place, waiting for their launch, boaters are
pretty adept at going at less than peak times, oftentimes. And so you'll
have people that will go early so they don't get caught in the traffic.
You'll have people that will come back early or late so they don't get
caught in the -- when their boats are being retrieved.
So I just think that you should really look at maximizing the use
of this property for" the benefit of the county in its entirety. Thank you
so much for allowing me to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Allen.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Simmons. She will be
followed by Edward Fullmer.
MS. SIMMONS: Hello, my name is Nancy Simmons, and I've
been a property owner, myself and my husband, for 25 years in
Goodland, and we live there full time the past five or six years.
I want to thank everyone in our country and here to allow us to
have the freedom of speech that we so preciously have preserved in
our country.
I feel the village is -- most of the people would prefer a boat park
compared to any large buildings, whether it be mainly condominiums
or homes. This is such beautiful waterfront property. Goodland is a
fishing community. The people moved there because of the
community, the village type atmosphere. Please, don't let us lose the
village atmosphere by allowing commercial development and
development, as such once, into Goodland, and please maintain the
property and pass the conditional permit. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Edward Fullmer. He'll be
followed by Deborah Klosik.
Page 291
March 22-23, 2005
MR. FULLMER: Yeah, I'm Edward J. Fullmer, 584 Coconut
Avenue, Goodland, Florida.
As president of the Goodland Civic Association in 2001, the
board of directors that year voted 9-0 to support the Board of County
Commissioners to settle a lawsuit by a developer to purchase Palm
Point property if Goodland would support a park and a boat ramp.
The county came to us -- the County Commissioners came to us
and the county to approve that, and we did 9-0 . Under the
understanding that half of the land would be for the park and half of
the boat ramp would be like Caxambas Park on Marco Island, with 36
parking spots and green space for overflow parking.
We have not changed our minds, nor have the residents of
Goodland.
On March 3rd, the planning board voted 6-2 to approve staffs
recommendation of a maximum of 50 parking spots. Paul Midney and
Ken Abernathy voted no because they wanted only 36 parking spots.
After the vote Bob Murray said, if I hadn't thought that 36 would
have passed, I would have changed his motion to that (sic).
I support staff and the planning board's recommendation of 50
spaces; thirty-six parking to be permanent with open pavers and 14
grass parking spots for overflow on peak days.
Donna Reed Carlton (sic) said, the county should be held to a
(sic) higher standards on the landscaping of the park. Staff has
recommended this for the park because it meets county code.
On March 15th, 2001, a new survey was counted and the vote on
that day was 119 to 105 for the park and boat ramp.
There are four lots alongside of the park that's for sale right now.
They're 60 by 90. And the four lots are four million dollars. You paid
4.5 million for 5.2 acres. So you can see the prices in Goodland since
2001 has really quatripled (sic) or went higher. You can't buy a lot in
Goodland for less than $500,000 that's 45 by 90, which is not to code.
But we had that done in the overlay. The 251 lots, it's nonconforming.
Page 292
March 22-23, 2005
The county code is now conforming.
I hope you honor the agreement made between the Goodland
Civic Association in 2001 and the county commissioners at the time,
and pass the planning board's recommendation and a conditional use
permit for a park on Palm Point and to keep Goodland historical
fishing village. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Deborah Klosik. She will be
followed by James Graham.
MS. KLOSIK: Good morning. I'm Deborah Klosik. I'm the
newly elected president of the civic association in Goodland. I'm a
landowner and a business owner.
I come to you today on behalf of the little silent majority, the
children of Goodland. And I'd like to relay a story to you, and I've
taken literary -- a little literary expression by writing a little story to
relay this information to you.
Once upon a time in the tiny village of Goodland there lived lots
of children with no place to play. Each day the children would say,
what can we do to make a smile today? And the adults would reply,
we had hoped to give you a park one day. And again the children
would say, but what can we do for a smile today?
Day in and day out the chant continued until one day, somewhere
in the crowd a small voice yelled, well, just give me a hammer and
some nails, and I'll make something, I swear.
Soon all the children had hammers and nails and were gathering
boards and doors, turning trash into treasure. The children would be
seen pushing couches and chairs supported on the wagons and
three-wheeled bikes down the street to some secret place.
The adults began to ignore these laborious chores and soon forgot
that one small voice in the crowd that swore.
Time passed until the children could no longer be ignored, and
there at the end of the street for all to see in all its glory was their
palace, two stories. The children had planned and built a grand tree
Page 293
March 22-23, 2005
house. And now the children smiled.
Now, you'd think this was the end of the story and it had a happy
ending. But alas, in all stories, there can be a twist of fate.
Our story began -- our fate in our story began with a single
telephone call. And what followed was the sudden appearance of the
big, bad, hairy code enforcement guy, and he huffed and he puffed
and yeah, he blew that house down.
Now, I tell you this as a little levity in the situation, but who
would have thought that we had a code that wouldn't allow our
children to take some initiative and build a tree house? But we have it.
Now our children have to go back playing in the streets, being told
not to go there, not to play there. They have no place to play.
I hope that you will certainly make an effort and consider that for
every parking space that you put in this park for a trailer and truck,
that you take away a smile.
And in closing, I'd say maybe it's not about catching that one
more fish, maybe it's about not maximizing the space, maybe it's about
maximizing a smile on a little child's face.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Graham. He'll be
followed by Dennis Schneider.
MR. GRAHAM: Hi, Commissioners. My name is James
Graham and I live on East Palm, 656. And I was a board of director on
the civic association for seven years. I'm not right now.
And I'd like to point out one -- well, two things I'd like to point
out. You know, you talk about the value of the land, and it's been
pointed out to me that one of the values of that land -- and I'd like to --
it's really the -- no, we the citizens own that land, we know that. I'd
like to point out the fact that it's a financial asset of future bonding,
that particular piece of land, because the value of that land is going up,
up, up.
And about seven years ago I think it was about under a million
Page 294
March 22-23,2005
dollars it was up for sale -- not probably seven, eight years ago. And
today you know what it's worth. It's worth -- what it's worth, and it's
going to be worth more tomorrow. And it's just a tremendous asset for
us, all of us, for the bonding. So that's -- I guess that's my -- I want to
say on that thing.
And the other thing that I'd like to say is, like I said before, the
road we're talking about, you know, that starts from Stan's around,
that's in the overlay district of Goodland, I ran up and down with my
vehicle, and the meter tells me it's under four-tenths of a mile. Under
four-tenths of a mile.
And as I said before, it's a mixed bag what's on that road. What's
on that road is VR, residential and commercial property. And then I
rode up and down where the commercial property was, and it's just a
little bit under point two of a tenth of a mile. A little under -- yeah, a
little under two-tenths of a mile is the commercial.
So it's actually in -- so that road's aligned with commercial
property and VR and residential. What goes up down that road what
you hear all the time is boats, trailers, beer trucks, everything. So
nothing -- I mean, when this gets approved, hopefully -- because I'm
for the conditional use -- when this gets approved, what will change is
just a little bit more of everything else. But the character of that road
and what goes on there for all these years does not change. And that's
a fact.
So that's about all I have to say, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dennis Schneider. He'll be
followed by Colleen Nuccio.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Hi. My name's Dennis Schneider. I live at
721 Palm Point Drive. That's the big house that you see on the left
there.
When we had our first meeting at Mackie Park back in October
of last year, I was actually for the county selling the property and
Page 295
March 22-23, 2005
having it devoted to some form of low density residential construction.
But this is about the county, the county's money. And that
money, it should be devoted to the recreational purposes that it was
intended for. Because you're responsible to your constituencies. And
they have to see that too in Goodland.
And for me, for my family, who's going to be impacted more
than anyone else there, we also have to see the reality that Goodland is
changing, Collier County is changing, and we have a responsibility to
the so-called masses, that they have a place to, in quotes, recreate.
So I've changed my -- I've changed my position and I am for -- I
am for the boat ramps on that property.
What I would ask Commissioners Coletta and Henning, who
have brought up the very important points today, that this hearing is
about conditional use, perhaps it would be possible to make a motion
that we follow staffs recommendations to have a maximum density of
50 boat ramps, because that would make me feel, being the resident in
Goodland who's going to be impacted most, that something is being
done, perhaps through putting more trees in, to make our family feel
that we're being responsible citizens to Collier County, that we're
helping people who don't live on the water launch their boats, that
we'll put up with the noise. But at the same time, that the
commissioners see that Goodland has a point, too. That's the most
important thing I wanted to say. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Colleen Nuccio. She will be
followed by Kris Dane.
MS. NUCCIO: Colleen Nuccio, 579 West Coconut, Goodland,
Florida. I'm a transplant from Illinois for 28 years. My roots took
hold in Goodland. I'm a Goodlander. I was on the picket line when
we protested Dolphin Cove condos. I was happy when the park -- the
property was purchased by the county and we finally have our park.
We know that many of your voters in your districts don't have
Page 296
March 22-23, 2005
docks and davits in their back yards and they need boat launching
spots. But remember, Goodland's a quiet laid-back community.
Parking for 50 to 75 trailers, boat trailers, would be a big change for
Goodland. I recommend that you ease us into this change with 36
spaces. You can add more as they are needed.
And some people want the county to sell the property to a
developer. Please don't do that. It's not always about what we can
build, it's about what we can preserve. Let's not have another Dolphin
Cove on that property.
As you come into Goodland, our water tank depicts many
endangered species. Our little village is also endangered. Keep Palm
Point Park. Keep it green. Keep it for Goodland and all of Collier
County. Park, yes. Boat trailer parking, 36. Please. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kris Dane. He will be
followed by Connie Stegall-Fullmer.
MR. DANE: Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity to
speak here today. My name is Kris Dane. I reside at 1300 Dolphin
Road in the City of Naples. I also own a business in Goodland at 385
Angler Drive, which is a full service marina and boat yard with a boat
ramp, which we've operated for the past 10 years or so.
In my capacity as a director of the Collier County Marine Trades
Association, I've becoming familiar with communities' efforts all over
the state to provide access to the boating public. This is a hot issue.
We're in a growth state. People come down here to enjoy the water
and we need to provide public access.
This county is in a very good position to do that by owning a
piece of waterfront property which should be developed for
water-dependent uses, and it should be developed to its fullest extent.
My suggestion would be that you consider approving the
conditional use with up to 75 spaces, with a provision that 50 be
designed and built in a permanent -- with permanent paving, and then
the other 25 could be as overflow reserve parking.
Page 297
March 22-23,2005
We've heard concerns about the landscaping code by staff. You
could further condition your approval that anything that they do there
in the final plans have to meet the landscaping requirements of the
Land Development Code. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Kris.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Connie Stegall-Fullmer.
She'll be followed by Debbie Pappy.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Good morning. My name is
Connie Stegall-Fullmer. I'm president of the Goodland Preservation
Coalition, and I live at 584 Coconut Avenue, in Goodland.
This is a picture of the Dolphin Cove complex that was originally
planned for that parcel of land some seven years ago that we fought
against that you helped us on. You've continually been helpful for
Goodland's needs, and we're again asking that you do that today, to
support and vote in favor of the conditional use permit.
I pretty much agree with what Mr. Dane has just said.
Marla Ramsey has indicated that her purpose in the number of
parking spaces was to accommodate the busiest day of the year when
many people are out boating.
Most of the time the park will be utilized during the week time
with 20 to 30 boaters. It's only on those busiest weekends and holidays
that we need to be concerned about the max-out use. The land is there
to be used for parking.
We would ask, though, that you consider during the -- that we
follow the staff's recommendation during the site development process
to provide more landscaping and to use the pavers.
So I won't go on in any more detail. I pretty much agree with the
list of things that Mike Barbush presented. Weare concerned if this
property were to be sold, that it would be annexed to Marco City.
Commissioner Halas, I especially was concerned yesterday with
what happened in your district. A lot of your boaters have lost access
to the water. It's a long drive for them to come down as far as
Page 298
March 22-23,2005
Goodland, but to provide more water access to Collier County boaters
is important.
And we are a fishing village, we would like it to remain in the
character of a fishing village with a park and boat launch facility.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Debbie Pappy. She'll be
followed by Traugott Schmitt.
MS. PAPPY: Good morning. My name is Debbie Pappy. I'm a
resident of Goodland and a property owner. I'm also the secretary for
the Goodland Civic Association and a member of Goodland
Preservation Coalition. In addition, I served as a member of the park
committee that was formed by the civic association in 2000.
First of all, I would like to thank you all for your time to meet
with our community and the energies that Jim Mudd and David
Weigel and all of you commissioners have given our community. We
really do appreciate it.
After many years of turmoil and controversy, I'm here to urge
you to vote yes on the conditional use permit. The Parks and Recs
department has provided a maximum facility. The scope of boat
trailer parking is too large. We need more park and less parking. We
need more native vegetation protected and more additional vegetation
introduced as a buffer for the neighboring residents.
Goodland is a historic fishing village. It is a destination, a place
unique in Collier County, a place where people can reconnect with the
good 'ole days. It is a pedestrian way of life.
On Sundays in Goodland, our community swells by hundreds
and sometimes thousands of visitors. There is vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. This is a fishing village and there are always boats
of all sizes being towed through our town. With proper supervision
and monitoring of this proposed facility, residents and boaters can
coexist.
Page 299
March 22-23, 2005
The staff report has stated that this facility should be limited to a
maximum of 50 boat trailer parking spaces. Recently the planning
board heard our presentation and voted 6-2 for 50 spaces. It is
important to note that the two dissenting votes were for 36 spaces, and
that Mr. Abernathy stated that we give Goodland a lot of lip service,
then go on and do what we want.
Yesterday the county gained 29 boat trailer parking spaces at
Wiggins Pass. Currently the county is expanding two of its facilities at
Bayshore and at 951.
V ote for 36 parking spaces, stipulate no widening of roads or
addition of sidewalks. Add monitoring at State Road 92. Expand our
green space and add a vegetative buffer. Replace the macadam with
crushed shell and/or pavers. Finally, make this conditional use permit
non-transferable.
I urge you to be sensitive to our community. Goodland Park can
be a model for a sympathetically designed facility, one that combines
the elements of a working fishing village in a community with the
demands for boating access.
With careful planning, protective review and continued
community input, you have the ability to retain our village lifestyle
and offer visitors, not just boaters, a destination for today and for the
future. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Traugott Schmitt, and he will
be followed by Angie Machetto.
MR. SCHMITT: That's close, but thank you.
MS. FILSON: Thanks. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, if you'd move that microphone up
closer to your mouth. Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: The Goodland Civic Association board of
directors voted nine to nothing in July, 2001. You know why I know?
Because Marla Ramsey showed me a letter in January of2004. That's
two and a half years after Goodland was given up.
Page 300
March 22-23, 2005
This is not about boat ramps and it's not about condos, it's about
property rights. The commissioners triggered the Bert Harris Act back
in November the 28th of 2000, and that created a lot of problems for
the commissioners.
And I had a lot to say here, but they shut me down to six minutes
__ or three minutes. And I've sent all you gentlemen and lady a packet
of information. I think there's 18 attachments, whatnot, involved.
And I don't want to be up here, I'll tell you that.
I know this, that Collier County needs access to the water. But
Goodland is not the answer. When votes don't count, when surveys
sanctioned by the county are quashed, when community bulletin
boards become censored, when ladies are threatened, when freedom of
speech on posted signs are yanked and thrown in dumpsters, when you
can't walk the streets of Goodland without watching your back, when
they want you dead, it's time for someone to step up.
Attachment 10 that you have, July the 10th, 2001, Mike Pettit
said that he would like to have a letter from our board of directors
indicating we would support the park and boat ramp before they go
any further with the offer. Why did Assistant County Attorney Mike
Pettit need something in writing, a letter from the board of the
Goodland Civic Association, before they go any further with the
offer? Was it because there was a federal court damages case waiting
in the wings? Was this to justify the county spending $4,588,000 for
this property? Because if they didn't make settlement, according to the
executive summary, paragraph three, Page 78, quote, in the meantime,
discovery is proceeding in the federal court damages case and the case
is scheduled for a non-jury trial in April of 2002, end of quote.
Goodland became a pawn, a trade-in for the county. This
executive summary helped county commissioners settle a lawsuit.
Were property owners of Goodland misled? You better believe it.
It took us two and a half years to find out that there was a nine to
nothing vote.
Page 301
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Do you --
MR. SCHMITT: Ann Machetto will give me a little time, if I
can have her time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is she a registered speaker?
MS. FILSON: She is the next registered speaker. She's indicated
that she's going to relinquish her time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What I would ask you to do is to
tell us whether you support or oppose the park. Reviewing ancient
history is not on the agenda today, okay? What's done is done. We're
trying to make a fair decision here. Please help us.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand that.
MS. FILSON: And then the next speaker after this gentleman
will be Emilee Lake.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand that thoroughly.
I completely oppose the boat ramps in Goodland. I think a smart
development could come in and it would be a definite asset to
Goodland and maybe we can get by.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much, sir.
MS. FILSON: Okay. After Emilee Lake will be Anne Hess.
MS. LAKE: I want to thank you for the opportunity to address
you today. My name is Emilee Lake. I live at 425 Mango Avenue in
Goodland. I'm a property owner and a year-round resident in
Goodland.
I have driven all over Collier County, I've also read the real estate
section in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, and I'm here to tell you,
there's no shortage of condominiums or multi-million dollars homes.
What there is is a shortage of park space, open space and boat launch
facilities.
This morning on Channel 2 the news anchor was reporting on
this meeting being held today, and she said, the people of Goodland
are against the park because it will bring in unwanted people.
That is not true. All of you have been to Goodland. Many of
Page 302
March 22-23, 2005
you have been there on Sunday. And I doubt that any of you have
ever felt unwanted. You're very much wanted.
We realize what we have down there. It's a jewel. Where else
are you going to launch your boat and have the option of going deep
into the backwater or out into deep water within minutes? There's
nowhere else around here you can do that.
People have expressed a concern about the road coming into
Goodland. I have seen the Budweiser truck coming in and I've seen
the Miller truck leaving. They don't seem to have any problem getting
by each other.
They talk about big boats coming in. Well, they're not going to
be launching the Titanic, okay? You're talking about a guy with a
truck and maybe a, you know, 16 to 28-foot boat launching. There's
no problem getting in. People do it every single day.
I'm here to advocate for the park, not so much the parking lot. I'd
like to see more park instead of parking lot.
Someone mentioned earlier that we have another park in
Goodland. I believe they were referring to the Margood property.
The closing on that does not take place until March 31 st. And as any
one of you who has ever bought or sold property knows, until the
closing it's not a done deal. So as it stands right now, the only park
property we have in Goodland is located there at Palm Point.
I would ask to you minimize the parking, use the maximum
amount of landscaping, and make sure that something is included for
the children.
And also, someone said they don't want Goodland to change. I
first moved there in 1972, and I could be here all day long telling you
the change that has occurred. There's good change and bad change,
there's manageable change. And what we're asking for you is to give
us manageable good change. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Anne Hess. She will be
Page 303
, __.~__,_..m " _.-_....__.._......._...'.."._-'...______
March 22-23, 2005
followed by Diane Clark.
MS. HESS: I'm Anne Hess. I live at 648 East Palm, directly
across from the proposed boat park.
I'd like to speak in favor of the community character of Goodland
being followed right into this public use of our land. I believe that
Goodland is an inclusive community. For years it's been affordable
housing for Collier County. And I think that it's a beautiful spot that
the entire county should be able to enjoy, not just people with boats
and trailers.
I think that many people will come to have a spot where they can
have a picnic lunch by the water, look out into the Ten Thousand
Islands, get a flavor of what the Everglades is like, real Florida, old
Florida, not gated communities, not golf courses, not highrises.
Something that's accessible for all people.
I think that you should balance the park with the parking lot.
Fifty spaces is plenty. This is a very small piece of property. I urge
you to keep our community character for all to enjoy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Diane Clark. She will be
followed by your final speaker, Jim Kalvin.
MS. CLARK: I am here today for myself, but I am also reading
a statement from my neighbor. I am Diane Clark and I have had
property in Goodland since 1971. So I very much agree with what he
said, I won't add my own comments.
This is from Rich Pappy, 583 Coconut Avenue.
Madam and gentlemen, I apologize for not being able to appear
personally for this important testimony. I have asked a friend to read
my letter to you on the subject of Palm Point in Goodland.
I support the approval of the conditional use permit. Your vote is
critical to the future of Goodland.
As you've heard many times, Goodland is unique. It is quite
literally among the last authentic old Florida fishing villages in
Page 304
March 22-23, 2005
southern Florida. Its heritage ought to be protected and preserved for
future generations.
A vote for the conditional use permit will be a strong step in the
direction of preservation, because your vote will demonstrate
commitment to green space and open space, and because boating and
fishing is what Goodland is all about.
There are a few noisy voices in Goodland pressing for the sale of
Palm Point. They don't have a heart for Goodland and they don't have
a heart for Goodlanders. The price they would have us all pay is the
extermination of a priceless and irreplaceable legacy. Goodland is an
uncommon oasis of value in a world that is becoming more common
each day. It must be protected.
Your vote today is about keeping peace in your own hearts for
doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Think park. Did you know that Naples has almost five acres of
public park per 1,000 people, not counting eight and a half miles of
public beach? Do you know that Marco Island has 5.6 acres of public
park per 1,000 people? That's not counting over three miles of public
beach. And did you know that in Collier County there are 5.6 acres of
public park per 1,000 people? And that doesn't count miles and miles
of public beach. And 787,000 acres in conservation.
Do you know how many acres of park land Goodland has?
None. No place to play ball, no swings or seesaws for the children.
No basketball courts, no tennis courts, no volley ball or badminton
courts, no shuffleboard, bocci, no place for exercise or barbecue or
horseshoes, no soccer fields, no tracks, no walking paths, no circuit
training. Nothing of that.
Goodland is not a big town. Indeed, we're a very little town with
little streets and little homes and little retired people and little children,
40 of them.
Because Goodland is small and because we're already very
crowded on the weekends with visitors and because we are a
Page 305
March 22-23,2005
pedestrian community, think 36. We will all feel more at ease with 36
spaces. Think park, but think 36. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Jim Kalvin.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jim, were you sworn in?
MR. KAL VIN: No, sir, I don't believe I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We need to have you swear him
In.
(Speaker duly sworn.)
MR. KAL VIN: My name is Jim Kalvin. I'm a resident of
Brookside, in Naples. I'm also a property owner in Port of the Islands,
and I've been a resident of Collier County since 1964.
I'm going to first speak very briefly from a personal standpoint.
And over the last few years, I think most of the people in this room
will recognize that we've lost Wiggins Pass Marina, Boat Haven,
Turner Marine, the Hanson Great American Marine property, the
Fleischmann property by the city dock. And Bay Marina is half
commercial use at this point in time. We've lost a horrendous amount
of water access throughout Collier County.
I took an informal poll as I listened to the speakers after I came
in, and I came up with 16 -- and I only counted the Goodland residents
and business owners -- 16 people in favor of the conditional use, three
people opposed.
I heard one gentleman make a reference to when one vote doesn't
count. I'd like that consideration put on the other side of the coin, as
the 16 people who are residents or business owners in Goodland want
this park. Because there is no place for the kids to go.
And as somebody who utilizes Bayview Park extensively in East
Naples, I can tell you that the upland portions of the park, the
barbecues, the swings, the bathrooms, the picnic tables are utilized
fully every weekend. And this will be an invaluable asset, and as one
speaker mentioned, an invaluable legacy.
Page 306
" ,,_...____..e"~.,.____,_..,'_~__..,,"<_..______"_..__
March 22-23, 2005
Now as the founder and the government affairs chair for Standing
Watch, which is the state's largest public boating representative group,
I was in Tallahassee last week dealing with one single issue: A boat
ramp in Pinellas County. Water access throughout the State of Florida
has shrunk to the point to where the denial by the Park Service of one
boat ramp became a statewide issue. And that's not unique.
We're fighting water access throughout the State of Florida, and
it's only recently come to the cabinet level of consideration for every
boat ramp that gets permitted. In Jacksonville, Goodby's Creek
Marina was a hot button issue for a two-lane boat ramp in Jacksonville
to replace a marina that had burned to the ground. It took action by
the government cabinet to get a permit through. That's how precious
water access is.
And this park, which is going to allow boaters who want to go
offshore, it's going to minimize travel through manatee areas, through
seagrass areas, you're at the Gulf right away. It's going to allow the
people who want to go through the backwater access to the backwaters
immediately.
And for the future of the county, very seldom do you have a
chance to make a vote that's going to have such a lasting impression
for so long. And this is one of those votes. Please support the
conditional use permit, water access and the green space for the
residents of Goodland. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. That was the last
speaker?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
And I would like to thank all of you for being courteous enough
to adhere to the time standards. You've made your points very clearly
and you did it within the time allowed. Thank you very much for your
consideration.
Commissioners, do you have any questions of the public?
Page 307
,,--,,----~..".--..,-- ". --"''''"-'-'-"'~--'-
March 22-23, 2005
If you do not, I will close the public hearing, we'll take a break
and then we'll come back and begin the debate on this issue.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then I'm going to close the public
hearing and we're going to take a break for 10 minutes. Okay?
(A recess was held.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic. Mr. Chairman, it's yours.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Reischl, what do you have to
tell us?
MR. REISCHL: I just wanted to clarify a few things. That the
pavers in the conceptual plan that you see here, all the green, we
proposed pavers on those. The drive aisles are asphalt. So the design
that we have here does include pavers.
And I spoke to Stan Chrzanowski at engineering review and he
said there was a way to make those grass pavers pervious so that the
grass could grow and survive in there, while creating a stable surface
for the boats and the trailers.
And also, while you're considering the issue, two of the things
that -- I know you don't want to micromanage SDP's, but two of the
things that if you don't decide on here will affect the SDP would be as
I described, the sidewalk on one side. If you don't specify that there
would only be one sidewalk, then the sidewalk would have to be built
by code along that east side, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're asking for a conditional use
and a variance?
MR. REISCHL: Well, I don't want to put it that way, but that's
something for you to consider.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, this is for Norm Feder. Have
we -- I asked a question during the break to Norm, and that was the
Page 308
March 22-23, 2005
width of the road, 92A, going in off of 92. And there's also a couple
of curves there as you enter into that area, and all the way to the boat
__ can you tell me what the width of the road is?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I had made the call. I haven't
gotten an answer back right now. I don't know the width of it offhand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was that your last question,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, I think you know a
little bit about traffic, right?
MR. FEDER: I'm going to try.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, what is the traffic --
it's not the generator in this case, it's the attractor. Is it the number of
parking spots, or is it the boat ramp itself?
MR. FEDER: It's the boat ramp itself, the demand. As we've
seen in other places, you look at Wiggins Pass, there's the demand in
that case to get to the beach, beach access. So it's really the demand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifwe limit the parking on there,
would that decrease the traffic?
MR. FEDER: To a degree, but not appreciably. The demand is
still out there and you'd probably experience what we experience in
other places and that is that people would end up -- I think that's where
the question came from -- parking along the side of the roadway,
waiting for the next spot.
And so you don't necessarily decrease the traffic, you actually
create some conditions that are less desirable if you undersize to the
real demand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's probably why we have
parking standards for commercial uses --
MR. FEDER: Same reason, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- it's a standard that is used
Page 309
March 22-23,2005
nationwide.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other thing, as far as the
sidewalk, would you recommend putting a sidewalk -- or is it really
needed next to the -- where the boat trailers come in and are lining up
to get into the boat ramp facility?
MR. FEDER: Our Land Development Code, and we would
recommend sidewalks, yes.
First of all, I was told in the middle part -- beginning part of this
presentation, in fact, it has a lot of pedestrian traffic in the area. Plus
when you have that activity of vehicles moving in and out, if you can
separate that out where people are walking, it's to the advantage and to
safety .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the pedestrian traffic
would -- is part of the people driving their trucks and the boats in, or is
it tied to the --
MR. FEDER: People coming down there to fish, people with
their boats. You have cars being able to park there without a boat,
because sometimes they don't come along in a single vehicle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the utilization of the
sidewalks, is it more for the park or is it also for the people in the
boats bringing their trailers down, boats and trailers down?
MR. FEDER: I would imagine it would be both. Once they
bring their vehicles, the boats in, they then have to be able to walk
down to the site. Parking spaces go the full length, so you would try
to separate out your walking areas.
The other would be obviously anybody trying to access the area
on foot or by bike.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Oh, Norm, before you leave,
or maybe -- I don't know if I -- no, I'll ask Marla, maybe she can help
Page 310
March 22-23,2005
me a little bit.
Marla, Commissioner Henning was just talking about sidewalk,
and the one you have here shows just on the one side rather than on
both sides. I don't even know where it really begins. Does it begin
right there at the entrance to the park or what?
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, Administrator,
Public Services Division.
It really starts at the entrance of the park and it goes on the one
side. The reason we put it on the one side is we wanted to separate
crossing over of the traffic going down to the ramps.
There's really no pedestrian reason to go onto the other side of
the park. The north side of the park, the sidewalk gets you to all the
pedestrian elements: The shelters, the fishing piers, et cetera. If you
put it on both sides of the park in this particular case, it really kind of
takes you to nowhere and it reduces the native vegetation that we've
already got along the edge of the park itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And they were talking about
__ somebody spoke about curbs. Are we thinking of putting curbs in
the roadways or something?
MS. RAMSEY: No, the only curbs that I could be thinking of at
this particular moment is if you put in a tree every 10 parking spaces,
you put in an island. Normally they want curbing around that island.
We find that's a little bit of a distraction to someone who's backing a
boat in and out, and they usually go over the top of that curb all the
time.
And so that's one of the reasons why we didn't really want to get
into the site development plan elements of this, because we have to
discuss those and talk about what's the practicality of this particular
site plan and what we do there. We've tried to eliminate those islands
in most of our boat ramp areas because of that issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have like the little cement
bumper things, that instead of a curbing you would just put there so
Page 3 11
March 22-23, 2005
that it kind of tells the boat when you've reached the end of the
parking spot?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, a car stop in the front. Yes, we do put a car
stop in the front.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And if you -- just from a
Parks standpoint now, what would be the best plan for the park
concerning safety? How can we -- how can we find a way that we can
maximize the park and yet accommodate all of the boat parking and
yet follow -- in order to preserve that -- the heritage of that whole area.
One of the gentlemen said something about preserving the heritage of
the community, as well as the heritage of boating.
And I'm trying to find a way that we can work with all of them.
Is there like a phase-in process so we see what needs are? Or what
can we do, in your opinion, to do it best?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I think the very best thing that we can do
is make sure that we have planned for the maximum day here. And if
that means that it's so many that are brick paved in and so many
overflow, I don't know that it really makes a difference, as long as
we're able to encompass all of those people coming to the community
inside the park boundary. That's really the goal of the Park and
Recreation Department. Whether they are 50 paved or 75 paved in or
the rest of them are overflow parked as a green grassy area, I don't
believe staff really cares about that, as long as we are able to capture
them.
We do not want to repeat 951 Boat Ramp. And as you know,
we're putting 84 additional parking spaces there right now. And that
will basically get us even at that location. We're buying up lands at
Bayview so that we can pull some of those people off those roadways.
We just did the same thing over in Cocohatchee yesterday.
We need to bring those people into the site, because they do want
to launch, and they will try and park somewhere. And we would be
poor stewards, I think, if we didn't have enough capacity inside the
Page 312
~-,----'_.-
March 22-23, 2005
park itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So -- and we would try and
protect the neighbors as well to make sure there's parking on the
facility rather than parking all over the streets; is that what you're
saying?
MS. RAMSEY: That's exactly what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, is there a way that we
can -- you've got this first portion here and you say that's all brick
pavers, right, with the asphalt going around it, right?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, there's asphalt drives going around it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And how many does that
accommodate there?
MS. RAMSEY: That plan that's on the site right now has 75
parking spaces on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I mean, how much in that first
long strip of parking?
MS. RAMSEY: That I'm not exactly sure. I believe that in this
section right in here and in this section, if you add these two together,
that's about 55. I could show it to you this way, if you want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, and that's 55, and you say they'd
be pavers.
Would it be -- would it be, as far as even safety goes and so forth,
if we put pavers in there, left the grassy part in the rest, but that could
be overflow parking in the grassy, would that work if we had 50
there?
MS. RAMSEY: Let me show you a second plan here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: Given the direction that we had from the
planning commission, this site here is 55 parking spaces as pavers
with grass coming through it, with an overflow area up into the corner
where you see that white arrow comes down, it shows an overflow for
25 boat areas in there as well.
Page 313
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this is direction from planning
commission here?
MS. RAMSEY: No. Well, given the fact of what they were
recommending to you, we wanted to see what that looked like. And
this is similar to what it would look like. This is 55 parking spaces
designated with an overflow area for 25.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That accommodates everything
then, right?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. We can still-- our goal is still to have 75
parking spaces there, and this will accomplish that, this plan right
here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This will accomplish that?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I need to have you clarify that, because
my count doesn't yield 75 parking spaces here.
MS. RAMSEY: I'm sorry, one more time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just said, I think, to Commissioner
Fiala that the plan that is on the screen right now will allow 75 parking
spaces.
MS. RAMSEY: Correct. Here, let me show you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, there's 38 on the column to
the left.
MS. RAMSEY: This whole area right here of all this parking is
55 parking spaces, all of this right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Both sections.
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, all three sections --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. RAMSEY: Provides 55. Then you have a white arrow that
shows this area up in here becomes an overflow parking area.
And then of course when you go into overflow parking area,
they're quite tight, as we do at Caxambas, but we can squeeze 25 in
Page 314
".__._._"._.P__...____.___~.___._"___~.__"_'_M__'_'.__~".._,-
-"---------_.~_.."._- ""
March 22-23, 2005
this open grassy area right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, are you finished--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Fiala?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is -- how is the traffic going to --
what's the compatibility of the traffic going to be on Sundays down
there when you have Stan's open and you've got people parking on
both sides of the road? How is that going to -- is there going to be any
problems getting boat trailers back and forth down that road when
people park alongside the road on both sides on Sunday?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, I understand that it's quite busy down
there. I personally have not been down there on a Sunday, but I've
seen some photos of the way that it looks.
And just as it does now, I think there will be extreme caution. I
think that we can educate our people that come into those boat ramp
areas, because I believe that they'll be multiple users and they'll be,
you know, frequenting it often. So I think you can educate them that
on Sundays they have to be very careful about how they come and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, when they get out of the car,
the only place they can walk, because they're almost right next to the
mangroves or the -- they're going to be on the -- they'll be walking
alongside the street.
MS. RAMSEY: Correct. I think that's an issue that exists there
today. And I'm not sure that the park is the catalyst of that. I think it's
an existing problem on Goodland, but I don't know that there's anyone
that wishes us to address that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think maybe he was just pointing
out that because people are parking on both sides of that road, and in
the mangroves they can't park too much into it, so they -- you know,
their wheels are still on the road. And I think what Commissioner
Halas was saying was that it would be difficult for boats and trailers to
Page 315
March 22-23, 2005
get through that passageway. I don't think he was asking you to
correct the traffic situation on Sundays at Stan's, just pointing out that
it could be a problem to get in and out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Marla?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You said the planning
commission was still allowing for the 75 spaces?
MS. RAMSEY: No, I don't believe that they were. I think they
were saying that they only wanted 50 parking spaces here. And I'm
just giving you a plan where I think I can get 55 plus some overflow
on those very peak days that we have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, what you did
is you took their plan for the 55, then with the overflow you came
back up with the 75.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. That was the goal, was to still
get to 75 and be able to accomplish that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How effective would the
overflow be? Would it be just as effective as if the spaces were laid
out in advance?
MS. RAMSEY: No, they're not as effective. I mean, we will
have to have staff that will help park on those busy days. But we do
plan to have staff at this location anyway. But it will be an operating
cost in order for us to guide those vehicles into a proper location so
that we can get in as many as we need to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The overflow area that you're
indicating here, that would be a green area with these pavers, grass
pavers?
MS. RAMSEY: No, it would just be stabilized underneath with
grass on top.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if it was utilized on a regular
Page 316
March 22-23, 2005
basis, then it would probably look fairly ragged. I mean, the grass
would start to give out if it was used for parking on a number of days
in a row or during the dry season?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, Caxambas -- we use Caxambas during our
heavy days and it really does stay green. You probably -- I don't
know, you know, the heavy weekend days, there may be 30 days out
of the year that you have that really peak day going on. So I think
there is time for the grass to heal up in between that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the -- the spaces wouldn't be
marked, it would be a case of staff standing there and directing people
In.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. Just as we would for a concert or
something else, we'd bring staff in and they actually park them. They
tell them pull it in here and bring it up and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you see that that would--
the overflow is something that you see utilized on the busiest days
during season; is that what you're thinking?
MS. RAMSEY: During our season, which is not necessarily
season. Our heaviest month is actually May.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I have a couple of
other questions, if I may, having to do with the planning council's
recommendation.
The crushed shell drive, was that something that's practical? I'm
not too sure what they meant by that.
MS. RAMSEY: We would hope that you would not lay that
condition on us for this particular location, because that is a
maintenance element. It also provides silt into the -- running down
into the water itself. I'm not even sure if it's permittable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then the -- what is the deed
restriction we're talking about, that the planning commission was
talking about?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, my understanding of that, and maybe Ray
Page 3 1 7
March 22-23,2005
Bellows can actually answer that better than me, I think they wanted
to make sure that if this was sold, that it would have some kind of
stipulation on top of it to stay public or a boat ramp, or -- I'm not
exactly sure what the entire detail was, though, but so that it wouldn't
be high-rise condos or something, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Bellows is nodding his
head, so you did an excellent job of explaining that.
Those are my questions for now, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to go ahead and make
a motion. And based upon the site plan, Marla, can you kind of juggle
the two site plans back and forth?
My concern is when you start -- on this plan you have a
separation between the pedestrian park and the parking of boat trailers
and vehicles. On the other plan you are mixing the vehicles with the
pedestrian area. And I don't think that's personally a good mix. And I
would rather prefer the other plan because of that reason.
And, you know, spending $4.5 million on this piece of property, I
would hate to see us limit our potential out there. So I want to make a
motion to approve the petitioner's request for this site.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For discussion purposes, I'll
give him a second now, but I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners Coletta seconds.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The issue of the planning
commission's recommendations, I've just got to say that this board
cannot tie the hands of future boards with deed restrictions. You could
put that in there, but still the -- you know, we all know that we don't
have the ability to do that.
The issue about the crushed shell, I mean, that's not good for the
environment. You start washing down into the water. Anyways,
that's my reasoning.
Page 318
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, you had a
question in addition to the second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to -- I talked a
little bit about the difference of the two plans, one with the green area.
Commissioner Henning's concerns were well stated, that he was
worried about the play area, especially for the children, and the
parking also being there. But Marla also mentioned, and I'm not sure
that she meant it quite the way that I understood, but the staff would
be assisting the parking, and also I imagine when people are pulling
out would be assisting them too to corrie out of that area?
MS. RAMSEY: Probably. It would be for an extended period of
time until I assume that it lightens up in the afternoon, and then you
probably don't have to help them get out of it either at that point in
time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So other than seeing an expanse
of green that wouldn't have pavers on it, what would be the advantage
of having this green area?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, for the community itself, they do have
some special events that they do. Three, I believe has been requested.
Three different times during the year they would like to use this
location for their large events.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm glad we brought this up,
because when were those times of the years?
MS. RAMSEY: I don't have the specifics on that.
Do you recall what they are? They are -- they're specific events
that they have that they would like to use this facility during that
period of time.
MR. REISCHL: It was Christmas Bazaar, Easter Egg festivities
and Goodland Birthday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a question. I'm really
confused now. We've got another park going on at the other end of
Goodland. Now, I understand that that hasn't been carved into stone
Page 319
March 22-23, 2005
yet, the final signatures haven't been done.
First off, is there any reason that we should suspect that there's a
problem with obtaining that park that's really for the residents?
MS. RAMSEY: No, I talked to Trust for Public Lands yesterday,
John Garrison, and he assured me that they're moving forward. They
might be slipped by a week or so by the working with the current
owner to vacate some of the location homes on the site at the moment,
because we want to make sure they're totally clear by the time we take
over ownership. So it might slip by a week.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then my question would be,
that when that park comes to reality -- and I sure hope it does, I know
a lot of people including myself are looking forward to it -- wouldn't
that be a better place for community events rather than a public boat
ramp and tying it up for three days a year?
MS. RAMSEY: One of the goals that we have is to put together
a park committee on Goodland. We need to discuss both sites when
we bring them underneath our ownership. I probably wouldn't have
much of a playground on this particular site when we have the
Margood in our hands. We would probably move all those children's
activities over to the Margood site, not on the boat ramp element here.
But we would probably still have activities for fishing and
barbecuing and that kind of stuff at this particular location, but try and
pull the children off away from this location.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And the last thing I want
to do is deny the children, especially the residents of Goodland, a
place to be able to have their community affairs. And I encourage it
and I'd like to see it happen.
I would like to see us lean towards the second choice. It's -- the
island's what, 2,000 feet long, 1,000 feet wide? These parks can't be
separated by all that great of a distance.
If the other park would accommodate them -- my concern is that
we're talking about community events that will probably take place on
Page 320
March 22-23, 2005
some of the most busiest weekends of the year when people like to
recreate. And so we suddenly take a resource when still have another
resource to meet the needs of Goodland, which hopefully it does. If it
doesn't, then that changes the dynamics of the whole situation
tremendously.
I think we need to be fluid on this, so that if we do pull it off
where the other park comes to be and the amenities can be put
together in such a way that it can meet the needs of the children and
the residents of Goodland and hold their community events, that's
where it should be.
If for some reason that's a physical impossibility, then we have to
come back here and figure some way we can amend this to be able to
make it work for all the people concerned.
But I just -- that's -- you know where I'm coming from on this,
Marla.
MS. RAMSEY: There's a number of ways you can look at it. I
mean, you could say that up to 75 parking spaces, start with so many,
phase them in over time. I mean, there's a number of different ways
you can look at. If you say 36 max, then that pretty much ties our
hands.
So I do think there's some flexibility that you can look at that will
gain us what we want to see. And of course as we grow in population,
it becomes a little more important to have those 75 parking spaces. I
think we need to be able to accommodate them somehow on this site.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you say the 75 parking
places over time, you think it's best that they be dedicated parking
places?
MS. RAMSEY: I think it can be a mix. I mean, we still can get
those cars in there. It's cleaner if it is dedicated, yes. Most definitely is
cleaner. But we can accommodate. We can squeeze on those heavy
weekend days if we need to. Ifwe ended up with 65, for example, we
could still probably squeeze the other lOin the green spaces.
Page 321
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion maker -- and I
haven't withdrawn my second yet, but I was wondering if the motion
maker might have any consideration that the green area might be a
better alternative, based upon what we know now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would amend my motion to
include up to 75 spaces with -- starting out with 50 and phase in the
others as needed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that gives me concern,
Commissioner Henning, in the fact that if we phase them in as needed,
there's always a time lapse there where a number of our residents
would not be able to get there. If it was a overflow area then to be
able to meet the needs at that point in time, then you could phase in
something else.
Of course it's kind of hard to reconfigure a parking lot when you
have this green area. Now, I suppose it can be done. It looks like it's
been chopped up. But you've got the water retention area that has to
be redone.
So I'm not too sure if you could come back later and take a green
area and turn it into a dedicated area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Urn -- oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, go ahead, I'm through. I'm
still wrestling with this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, then I want
to make a comment and then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. So you suggest in the
beginning, as you say the need in the future years is going to be for
75, but right now you feel that it isn't; is that what I heard you say?
MS. RAMSEY : No, I said for dedicated parking. I still think
that you can get your green space area. If you look up there right now
between the two plans, between the first and the second plan, you're
easily able to move from one to the other, if you needed to. It's a drive
__ it's just another roadway in and a reallocation of where your wetland
Page 322
_._---------,._---".-._-<_._...~--_. ,,-,,---,-,-
March 22-23,2005
is. So I think you can meld the two of them in our site development
plan and phase that and show it as future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So going back to what
Commissioner Coletta was saying -- by the way, all of that asphalt, I
don't know that that's -- I don't know how other people feel about all
of that asphalt on that piece of property, but what Ray Bellows was
saying was, according to our Land Development Code, it needs to
have more landscaping in there to protect the neighbors in the
surrounding areas and to meet our code. And I don't know that that
asphalt accomplishes that. And I am concerned about that.
I feel that we should be -- Commissioner Henning says
repeatedly, we have to go by our Land Development Code --
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- well, this would be deviating from
that. And I think to the detriment of the people in the surrounding
areas, right?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, actually, I'm not of the opinion that we
can't meet the code with the 75 parking spaces. I mean, you might
have a little less green space, but we probably still can get to the code
issue here, just because it's not detailed at this point in time. This is
conceptual. And it's really kind of a bubble. And it can be moved one
way or another on the site itself, but you might lose some green space
in order to enhance your buffer because the road might need to move
over 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I thought you had said to me
before about the other park, Margood, that's going to be kind of like a
little historical walking park and, you know, and benches, and they're
going to preserve that area. But you had said there was not going to
be active sports like a swing set or anything in there.
MS. RAMSEY: Oh, yes. It's got planned to have a -- it's--
conceptually it has a large playground area, a picnic pavilion, screened
as well as unscreened because of the environment there. It will have
Page 323
March 22-23,2005
volleyball courts, shuffleboard, all --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it's changed, huh?
MS. RAMSEY: No, the original plan that we submitted for the
Florida Community Trust grant shows all of those elements happening
at that location, as well as some preservation of some of the buildings
that are existing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. I see.
Okay, going back to this one again, I still am concerned with all
the asphalt. I think it's great that we -- that the suggestion has come
by to phase this in. I think that grassy space can be used for parking.
I think that that's a great idea, yet the community can use it in between
times if there's -- you said only 30 days a year that they really need all
of -- you know -- you know, are the heavy days or the peak days, I
think you said, for 30 days a year.
But then the community could use the grassy space. You can't
play on asphalt and you can't have picnics on asphalt, but you could
use the grassy space for, you know, baseball games and stuff like that,
community events during the week when nobody's -- you know, not
many people are going to be boating. But you can't do that if you've
got pavers and asphalt there.
Is there a way that we can phase this in so that we can see how
much it's used and, you know, plan for the future? I'm not saying
don't plan for the future and I'm not saying take any parking away, yet
I'm saying park in a more responsible way to -- well, like what did it
say, the Marine Industries said accommodate the boaters and the
marine industry and yet preserve the community. And I think that
there's a way we can do both of that, but I don't think all of this asphalt
accomplishes that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas has been waiting
patiently. I'll let him go ahead and speak and then I want to address
the issue.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I answer Commissioner Halas'
Page 324
"_.._.....__._~"..,,.__"_,_._,~__n_..___-'-- '
March 22-23, 2005
question first? He asked a question about roadway width. They're
10-foot each, there's two lanes and we got 32 feet of right-of-way,
okay, so we did get that answered for you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Again, we have -- each lane is 10
foot wide?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There's two lanes. There's a total of 32
foot of right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's all the way through from
92 all the way to the entrance of the park?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think you were asking about the road
that enters the park from Stan's, and I think that's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, because I'm -- on Sundays
this would be probably the heaviest use of this park area for people
who are boating or going fishing. And I'd want to know what the
county is doing, how they're going to address it as a good neighbor in
regards to making sure that we have the safety of the pedestrians in
mind as these -- the vehicles, whether it's cars or boats, that somebody
doesn't get hurt. I'm concerned about the safety, health and welfare of
those people down there on Sundays, crossing that road back and
forth. If you've been there, they've got motorcycles parked there,
they've got cars parked.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You ought to go some Sunday.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I would have to rely on, I guess the
Sheriff's office to help us with the safety issues in the roadway itself.
I'm not sure that the park is -- is going to have the staff that's going to
go down and monitor that, but we would have to work very closely
with the SO to make sure that there isn't any speeding or other
elements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not even the speeding, it's just
the idea of negotiating through that crowd of people. I've been down
there many Sundays and it's taken me even with my car quite a bit of
time to get around the curve as you're coming from where this marina
Page 325
March 22-23,2005
would be and you start to head towards 92 on 92A. There's cars
parked on both sides of the road right next to the roadway itself.
Because when people exit out of their cars, they're parked off to the
side and then they walk down the street to get to Stan's. And so that's
what my concerns are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much,
Commissioner Halas.
I'd like to ask staff a question. Before -- I want to make sure staff
is paying attention.
MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Coyle, I do have a
recommendation that maybe will help in formulating your
recommendation.
The SDP process that will follow the conditional use, we can
address the safety issues and the landscape issues. And to ensure that
everything meets code we can go for 75, and if Marla agrees, maybe a
phasing of a certain percentage in, first 55 or more, or 68, and then --
because the maximum approved is 75, they won't have to come back
before the Board of County Commissioners to get the additional
parking when necessary, that it's only a site development plan
amendment process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that was the essence, I think, of
Commissioner Henning's original motion.
But let me comment about that for just a moment. As you know, ,
my preference always has been, in view of varying degrees of public
opposition to this in Goodland, to sell the property and find some
property somewhere else where we could provide perhaps more access
to the water.
I know the staff has looked at those opportunities, and you are
aware of the cost of property at other locations. And before I proceed
further, I just want you to give me some level of assurance that you've
looked at that and this is the most cost effective way to provide the
number of boat launching facilities that you can provide.
Page 326
March 22-23,2005
Do you know of another site where you could take the proceeds
from the sale of this property -- perhaps as private lots, not as for
condominium development, but as private lots -- that would make the
residents happy, and then we take the proceeds of that money and buy
some access somewhere else that would perhaps serve more boaters?
Is that a possibility?
MS. RAMSEY: I'm not necessarily a boater, and I do have staff
that are boaters that could probably answer this question better than I
am.
But my understanding is, is that this is a location that takes you
into deep water quickly, and we have not found another location that
can provide that quality of an experience.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At the same price?
MS. RAMSEY: At any price at this moment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that -- you would agree with that, Jim?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I mean, we're trying to buy up the property,
and, you know, Bayview and subject to the speed zones that are on the
bay. And, you know, if they're willing to sell it, we're willing to buy it.
And we have that money that we received from Heritage Bay, we
haven't used that up in any stretch of the imagination buying up
properties. If they're willing to sell them, we'll buy them, but, you
know, they're not willing sellers. And we haven't used eminent
domain for boat launch facilities that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, here's a decision that I
think we're faced with. We spent four and a half million dollars for
this property. Now, is it a wise use of four and a half million dollars
to create access for 36 boats, or is it a wiser use to create access for 75
boats? And that's a decision we've got to make, because this is
taxpayers money.
And we're trying to get as much boat access as we possibly can in
Collier County, but there is a cost to be paid for all that. And there are
tradeoffs on everything we do. And my concern is that if you start off
Page 327
" .- ~~ ."..,.,..~._...."_._._...".., ,,-".----~--~..-,.,...,,". ...-..-,."...---..'"".-.--
March 22-23, 2005
by limiting the number of boat slips to 36, you tie the staff's hands,
you have no opportunity to expand it in the future, and I'm wondering
if that is a wise use of taxpayer money. And as far as I'm concerned,
that is the fundamental question.
Now, if we do that, if we make a decision that you could have up
to 75 boat launch facil -- or parking spaces for boat launching, then it
would be up to the Parks and Recreations (sic) Department to
determine the design of that, the most efficient design for that
capability. And we really wouldn't get involved in that, as
Commissioner Henning has correctly pointed out. It gives you the
flexibility to work with the residents to determine whether you phase
it in or whether you recommend to the board that it be limited. But
there would always be the possibility of a maximum of 75.
I find the design on the left here to be a very difficult design to
accomplish and still permit reasonable traffic circulation in this area.
It gets very, very cumbersome.
But nevertheless, my remarks have prompted three more
comments by commissioners, so we'll go to the other commissioners
now, and Commissioner Henning, you're first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not so much your comments --
and of course I do recognize your methodical and logical comments
on this issue, and I think it's -- if we charge the people that we hire to
do the right thing, not only by the taxpayers but the community, I
think we're making good decisions.
My question for Mr. Bellows is his revised recommendations.
Now, the safety issues would be concerning the traffic on-site --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- am I correct? That's the only
question I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was next? Commissioner Fiala?
Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right, Coletta.
Page 328
March 22-23,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you go, ladies first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think at this time I want to say that
I for one am not trying to limit, because I know the need for it and the
price that we've paid for it. I think in my mind what I'm also trying to
do is take the community into consideration and try seeing -- or
phasing it in. And so I say if you do the first 36 or however many that
was that you counted in that line, but yet have ample space for green
space parking in case it's needed -- and it might only be needed a few
days a year, that's true, but at least it would be there, not limiting. If
we find that then in five years that that's really filling up, then you
might have to add, you know, more to make your 50 or 55 and yet still
have some green space.
I think you've done a really good job. As we took a ride around
the parks, at Caxambas, for instance, that's just a really good -- as well
as Cocohatchee. They're great examples of preparing for a large
crowd but only -- having that in mind and yet planning for what is
today.
And in this way I think you get both. You take the community
into consideration and yet you take the boating community into
consideration.
So I would really like to see us start off with just the 36 or 39,
however many you counted in that first line, but certainly prepare for
parking on the next. If you find that you need 55 within two years,
well, then put those pavers in there so you can do 55 and yet still have
some grassy area for the community. To me that seems like it would
be the fairest of all.
But I'm not saying limit it to 55. If you find that the -- you know,
the grassy area is in use, then we have to talk about that again. I'm not
trying to limit anybody, I understand how much money we paid for it,
but I'm thinking of phasing it in, which seems to be abetter, more
community- friendly way to go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
Page 329
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I have strong concerns
over phasing it in where we only have 36 parking places available and
limited amount on the green area. If it's not utilized for the full 75,
what's the difference? It's still going to be the same thing. It's just that
those times when 75 spaces are needed, they should be available.
I'm still leaning towards the diagram that we see on the left-hand
side of the screen where we have the full 75 that -- what is it, 30 of
them or 25 would be in the overflow area?
MR. MUDD: Twenty, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twenty?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, she said she had 55 that were in -- there
were 55 that were in here but were designated and there could be 20
that would go to the open area. I know she said 25, but 55 and 25
don't add up to 75. So I think she meant 20.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This gives a little bit for
everyone. It gives us all the parking that we could use, it gives a green
area that could be enjoyed by everyone, including the people of
Goodland, possibly for different events. It just seems to meet the total
needs.
And some day in the future if it's not working, if staff is finding it
very cumbersome to guide the cars into the overflow area and to guide
them back out again or if it's determined to be a danger to the kids
playing in the play area, then it could be reconfigured, as I believe
Marla said, to go back to the original design by just reconfiguring the
drainage areas and putting the other parking areas in.
My question, and I need to -- well, you need to clarify, the areas
that we see in green for the parking area with the stripes on it, is that a
grass parking area with the pavers down? So it is a green area.
MS. RAMSEY: They're like little donuts with holes in the
center.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we're not talking
about asphalt from one end to the other. This is a green area with the
Page 330
March 22-23, 2005
pavers that allows the grass to grow through so that it helps to break
down the parking lot as far as solid pavement. I like that.
I'm not too sure, where are we with the motion maker on this? I
know you amended your motion, but could you restate it, and I'll
make sure I can second it again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the revision was -- is to
phase the project in with a maximum of 75. Not start out at 75 but a
maximum. And that would give you more green space but also
prepare for the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I have to withdraw my
motion from that. I thought it was 75 that -- total that would be
available in times that we need it. Because my concern is if we're
going to be turning away numerous boaters until that point in time that
we can get back to this and be able to deal with it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, it's the same
thing. You're still going to have the availability for overflow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, you're still talking 75?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seventy-five is the maximum.
And you're still going to have room for overflow, but you're going to
phase it in to a much lower level. Let our staff worry about how many
spaces it is. Whether there's 36, 37 or whatever, let them decide.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I second that, if you withdrew
yours. I think that that's a reasonable conclusion, really.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I still don't -- I want to make
sure I understand Commissioner Henning. Under -- what you're
talking about under that particular scenario of events, I'm going down
to Goodland, how many parking places would there be available for
the boats? I've got my -- I'm towing my boat down, I want to know if
I've got a reasonable expectation of making it; how many would I
expect to find there, 75 or 30?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you're going to find
utilization -- say if you're 74, you'll find utilization of 75, but not build
Page 331
March 22-23,2005
__ as you see on the proposed site plan, is not build 75, but have the
availability for 75.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, one more time, let me
try it. The way you're describing it, you would be able to fit 75 boats
and trailers on there if you need to at any given point in time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. I think we're saying the
same thing, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought so, but that's fine.
Maybe I'm not explaining it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, when you said phase it in,
my assumption was that you were talking about starting with only 30
spaces now, increasing it to 40 later, going to 70 at some future date.
You're talking about a total amount of spaces that will be able to park
there of the 75, if need be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that what you understand,
too, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, phasing it in, but making sure
that 75 is always the top figure, so that you can always park 75,
whether it's a first phase --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Always park 75.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whether it's in first phase or a third
phase.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The county attorney wants to make a
comment.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I think you're getting to a point
where I was attempting to find a -- attempt to take you, and that is this
is merely a conditional use request. And interestingly enough, for a
Page 332
. _""._.___......._~_~_.w,_.~_"."...".... ~ --.,
March 22-23, 2005
change we're the petitioner.
So if you approve a conditional use to a maximum of 75 places,
that is the law of this particular conditional use for this site. It doesn't
mean by that mere approval alone that it has to be built to the 75. Just
as we've seen with other parcels discussed even yesterday where
people have had a zoning that allowed them to build far higher than
they ever chose to do.
And it's the same way here with the -- potentially the 75 spaces.
If you approve a conditional use for 75 spaces, it's up to you as the
owner and steward to determine, working with staff, how far it should
go and when it should go. And to the extent that you wish to put
additional management or tools into the conditional use approval, a la
stipulations, you may do so.
And I would suggest for clarity by virtue of the fact that the staff
had a list of many proposed stipulations, some of which it appears you
already have decided are not appropriate, such things as deed
restrictions and a couple of other points, and crushed shell drive and
things of that nature, it appears to me that your discussion is such that
you may want to leave this item with some degree of clarity and
direction to staff and yet you're still telling them to come back and
phase in, in regard to the parking space issue itself.
I would ask, if you would like to, to look at the staff
recommendations and maybe tick off anything that you wish to further
direct them to do, such as --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staff recommendations have
changed, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The staff recommendations have
changed.
MR. WEIGEL: I recognize that the major ones relating to the
conceptual site plan have. They have some additional ones relating to
manatee protection, exotic vegetation plans and things of that nature,
Page 333
March 22-23, 2005
which staff can tell you, I would ask that they do tell you, whether it's
even required to be directed by you or addressed by you today or not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're committed, under the
Manatee Protection Plan, to educate the boaters at our facilities.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, that's a no-brainer.
MR. WEIGEL: I mean, these -- some of these may be
redundancies to what is already required by our code and by the plans
that are in place, but I wanted to make sure that the staff was clear on
that as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the petitioner shall provide
exotic vegetation removal. You have do that anyways. You know, I
mean, it's part of the permit process, monitoring for--
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, some of those conditions were
installed in the conditional use because we were not getting the
environmental impact statement done prior to the conditional use
approval, and we deferred that to the time of the SDP approval. And
that was just a concern raised by environmental staff that it be
addressed, since it was put off being reviewed at the time of
conditional use --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll put it in my motion, but it's
part of the law anyways.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, we've got two parks down
there in Goodland. We just spent $2.7 million or whatever it was for
that one area that we're going to make a park, and we got an
investment here of four and a half million. And I think really we've
got a park for the residents there.
Now we have to look at boat access. And I think that we need to
come up with something that's similar to the right-hand side to make it
__ design it so that people can maneuver a boat and trailer around.
Page 334
March 22-23, 2005
And I think this is the best plan for something of this nature. And I
really think that we need to look at 75 units.
And it should be available as soon as it's open for everything, and
not just haphazardly start parking vehicles all over. You've got this
green area, but if nobody has any -- if there's no dotted lines or white
lines that people don't know how to park their vehicles, along with a
boat trailer.
And it looks to me like we've already -- we're going to
encompass some vehicles or cars, right, in the plan on the right-hand
side? We've got parking spots for cars there also.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's on the top.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're going to have 75 boat
trailers and then we're going to have parking for additional parking, is
that correct, for cars?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will also tell you that this won't
be the last time you see this, because we'll have to come back to you
for design. I mean, we're going to have to come back to you for a
construction contract. So you'll get to see all that stuff one more time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Seventy-five boat trailers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It appears to me -- we've got a
motion on the table, but it appears to me that you were asking for
guidance on really just two things, other than conditional use: One is
the sidewalk on one side of this property.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the other one is with respect to
crushed shell drives. You were not asking for any guidance on that.
Is there any other guidance that you were specifically requesting
vis-a-vis the recommendations that are included in the executive
summary?
MR. BELLOWS: Commissioners, my understanding from the
Page 335
_..,<___.----...-'-"-".,.....~.....-----.m.'"...'---.-,.",,__,
March 22-23, 2005
motion is that we're going to eliminate Stipulations 11 and 12, which
is the deed restriction to keep it a county park. We're going to delete
the restriction for crushed shell. And Stipulation 10, we're just going
to modify to allow a maximum of 75.
And the site plan process, we'll work out all the design issues
such as landscaping and traffic circulation. We will limit the sidewalk
to one side, which is Stipulation number two. There will be one-sided
entry road in, as Marla has described earlier.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we also put in the motion that
we make a study to make sure that we're going to have safety for the
pedestrians down there? Just to make some kind of a study? Maybe
we won't have to address it, but I'd like to have that in there just to
make sure that -- pedestrian traffic down there on weekends is
hamongus (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I second -- I'll put that in my
second, if that's part of the motion.
MS. FILSON: I have a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
MS. FILSON: I already have a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he withdrew it.
MS. FILSON: He did withdraw?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The safety issues is with the site
plan.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, the safety -- what I'm saying is
the safety --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. And you know what?
There's violations down there, parking violations. We don't want to
get into that, because the issue is, is the element is being consumed by
one commercial development down there, and it is what it is.
Page 336
March 22-23, 2005
You know, being a boater carrying a trailer, you really watch
what's going on around you. And it's not a Sunday drive. You're
careful of your surroundings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think anybody speeds around
there, because you can't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you can't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I bet you somebody tries.
Okay, then let's make sure we understand where we are with the
motion. The motion is to allow the conditional use with a maximum
of75 parking spaces. You're not dividing them up between 75 boat
trailer parking spaces and other regular parking spaces.
MR. BELLOWS: No, those are 75 boat trailer spaces, and there
would still be the 21 parking spaces for standard cars along the north.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so that would remain, the 21 cars--
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- alone plus 75 boat trailer parking
spaces.
And with respect to the recommendations of the staff,
recommendation number two would require the sidewalk on only one
side of the street, and recommendation numbers 11, 12 and 13 would
be withdrawn. Is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, 13 wasn't discussed, but do you have an
objection to 13?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, 11 and 12.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you're right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I think also in the motion was a
phasing-in policy.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, there's always that possibility that 75
could be provided at a later date. The first SDP submitted by the
petitioner would have the, say, 60 with overflow parking for 75, and
then if it turns out the need is that you want all 75 paved at once, that
Page 337
March 22-23, 2005
would be just an administrative SDP amendment process and not have
to go back before the board.
But I see some commissioners would rather see all 75 at once,
and that's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two commissioners are frowning at that.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to go down as a frown.
But I -- no, my concern is that I don't have any problem having
overflow parking, having the thing balanced out to meet some needs
for the residents. My problem is is that phasing them in is only
fooling ourselves. We know that we're going to need 75 at our peak
demands. We're going to have people out there that are going to be
very disappointed when they find out they're number 36 or number 37
and there's only 36 spaces, and they're going to remember the day that
they had a chance for the full 75.
We have a chance to be able to meet a need. We're grossly under
what we need for parking places for boats and trailers for boat
launches in Collier County. And I see this as a regressive move if we
go with a phasing in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marla, did you say that we need 75
right away?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I thought what the motion said was is that
we would provide up to 75, whether it was designated or overflow,
right from the very day that we opened it. It wasn't going to be phased
as such. I think the phasing came into whether they were going to be
designated parking spaces, but that the park capacity would always be
75, either through designated or overflow parking area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problems with that
language. What I'm having problems with is the phase-in.
MS. RAMSEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it just sounds so regressive
to where we were before about the 75. If there's (sic) going to provide
Page 338
---------
March 22-23, 2005
75 spaces, regardless, whether they're parking on the grass or parking
in the dedicated spaces, I'm fine with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what the motion is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, but the word phasing in
does not flow with providing 75. You're saying 75 is the maximum,
then you're saying phasing them in. And it's that terminology that's
raising me with some concern. And I think Commissioner Halas, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, do you agree with
that position?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. When I look at 75, I would
like to have it so you have 75 designated parking spots the day you
open that park up. Seventy-five designated parking spots for boat
trailers and 21 designated spots for vehicles.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You didn't answer the question
before. Do we need 75 the day we open the park?
MS. RAMSEY: I believe yes, you need 75. You need to be able
to bring 75 vehicles into that facility and find them a place to park.
Whether they're designated or considered overflow is the issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One more wrench?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stipulation number 13, boat
launch facility to be closed during specialty community events, that is
just wide open. And, you know, why did you sell the property with
that one in it, because it could turn into 365 special events. Part of my
motion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to amend your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, part of my motion is
remove stipulation 13.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, we've got to think
about this community just a little bit. They're only asking for three
days.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it doesn't say that.
Page 339
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. BELLOWS: We can amend it to say the three days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are the three days?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Christmas day, Easter day --
MR. BELLOWS: Petitioner stated three days.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but is it on a holiday,
Christmas Eve --
MS. RAMSEY: My conversations with the community has been
is that they would be fluid. I mean, they've got three things that they
would like to do. Whether they're on what weekend, there's never
been a specific date given to us. And my thought was that we would
work that date to make sure it didn't fall on one of our peak days.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, the events were Christmas, an
Easter egg roll and the Goodland -- the birthday.
MS. RAMSEY: Correct. And I don't know that it needs to take
up the entire site, either. We could probably just barricade certain
areas of it off and still allow ramp use in the first parking area, for
example, during those days.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Instead of that stipulation, why
don't we say Parks and Rec will accommodate the three special events
of the Goodland residents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I can handle that in my
second, as long as that's clear -- do you understand what he just said?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Will accommodate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One concern. I have no
problems with accommodating. But the thing is, if we've got another
park that's a short distance away that would be able to meet this need,
that's where this should be directed to. And this should only fall back
is if this other park falls apart and doesn't happen, then we have to be
Page 340
March 22-23, 2005
able to meet the needs of the residents in Goodland with this particular
facility .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's exactly what
Commissioner Henning just said --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Accommodate them. Doesn't
mean here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and that he's working with Parks
and Rec and whatever will accommodate these --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. As long as we're
understanding that this isn't a definitely this is the place it's going to
be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. Go ahead. I didn't
mean to keep interrupting you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we have a cohesive motion.
Is there any question at all at this point in time about what the
motion provides?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Everybody is okay with that.
Okay, we've restated it, we've amended it, and I think we're okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, just to make sure. We
did say phase it in but a limit of 75.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we not? We said phase it in,
right? Depending on what our needs are. That's right. I just want to
make sure, because that's what I thought the motion was, that's what
Commissioner Henning thought the motion was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, well, let's--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With a limit of75.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- clarify that. Because I heard
Page 341
-_._,.'"'"'"-,..-..-.....--,.,..~.,._.,_.._-".,.
March 22-23, 2005
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas say we want to have
75 defined parking spaces when this park --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- opens up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that was not the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They wasn't (sic) the
motion-maker -- they were not the motion maker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand. But I was uncertain
as to whether or not you had modified your motion to accommodate
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you have not. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's vote on it. And if it fails,
somebody else can throw something else on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. BELLOWS: Just one point of clarification. Part of the
requirement is to attach a conceptual site plan. And we have two here.
I would prefer if you would also designate the original site plan to be
attached, which is closest to, I think, the intent. And we can -- if the
motion includes a phasing, we could still work with that plan for
phasing.
The -- also, the other condition is that all parking has to meet
county code. I think, which goes without saying. I just want to make
that clear that all parking will meet county code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Bellows, do you see any
deviations, asking for any deviations to the parking --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, technically the over grass parking is not
allowed by the LDC. And I just wanted to put that on the record, that
grass parking's not allowed for these types of uses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we do do that in all the other
parks.
MR. BELLOWS: For churches you can --
Page 342
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I mean, we do that in the other
parks as well, right? Caxambas, Cocohatchee? Yes. Okay, I just
wanted to make sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have never been so frustrated
sitting here with the terminology phasing in and guaranteed 75 at the
day of opening. It just seems so contrary to one statement to the other.
I still haven't got a clarification. I'm not going to be able to vote for
the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think that Commissioner
Henning has verified that he was talking about a maximum of 75 with
a phasing-in. So let's call the question.
All in favor of Commissioner Henning's motion -- and by the.
way, this takes four votes. All in favor of Commissioner Henning's
motion for a maximum of75 with a phasing-in schedule, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, two votes. The motion fails.
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala voted in the
affirmative and--
MR. WEIGEL: Would you take the vote for the negative, for the
record?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay.
All those who oppose, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's Commissioner Coyle,
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coletta.
Okay, does somebody else have another motion so we can bring
this to a conclusion?
Page 343
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to go with the
option on the left side of our screen that provides for a max for 75
parking places, and 55 of them, is it --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- would be marked parking
places, and the additional ones would be in the green area where staff
would assist them in the parking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala seconds.
I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, Commissioner Fiala was
asking me a question. And I guess it's due clarification.
You know, flex -- I was just trying to give flexibility. And here
we're not flexibility. We're saying we're only going to do the one on
the left. And what I'm saying is you have the one on the left, you have
the one on the right, you have the one in the center.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a dozen others.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a dozen others. And it's just
allowing our employees to do their job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'll withdraw my second. I
totally agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'll rephrase my
motion, if I may, that we come up with a -- 75. The maximum 75
spaces be allowed from day one when it opens, and staff will make the
determination of the configuration in the green area and what happens
there. And then all the other conditions, including the items that we
removed would stay the same as Commissioner Henning's original
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
Page 344
~-"~._"~"~.""""-'" '.'~ .", ,~-~"-,- ..,"- _.,...._~-,._,.-
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The 75, is that a total for boats and
cars, or 75 boats?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm sorry. 75 for boats and
trailers and 22 for the --
MR. BELLOWS: Twenty-one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- cars, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it includes all the other stipulations?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All the other stipulations we
agreed to before.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except that 11 and 12, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And 13 was modified.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, to let staff work with them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, there was another one,
though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the sidewalk on the one
side.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a second--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Henning.
Okay, any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I want you to repeat it one
more time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who, me, repeat it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, repeat it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As I understand the motion by
Commissioner Coletta, it is to recommend approval for 75 parking
Page 345
March 22-23, 2005
spaces for boats and trailers, 21 parking spaces for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twenty-two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-two?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, 21.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's 21. Twenty-one parking--
MR. BELLOWS: Twenty-one was what they originally
proposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty-one for vehicles alone.
And the following modifications to the stipulations: Number one, the
sidewalk will be approved for one side; stipulations 11 and 12 will be
withdrawn; and 13 will be modified to reflect three special community
events that will be coordinated with Parks and Recreation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But now that beginning part, you
said 75 spaces --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Be available from day one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- be available. But what is it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staff would configure the best
possible way to do it. In other words, green area or marked spots.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you referred to the left-hand
side?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I did originally, but then
Commissioner Henning brought up some very good things about the
fact that these are all conceptual and staff should have some ability to
be able to fluctuate.
My concern is that we come up with the full amount of the
parking places when needed and still be able to meet the needs of the
residents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was kind of like the blended --
blending in, right, in the beginning, phasing in? Same thing, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no. The way it was
stated before, it was going to be phased in.
Page 346
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, it start off with a
smaller number and grow as time went along. This will allow for the
full 75, if needed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If needed? In other words, you
want to put them in immediately?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, people will fill
up at 75 people are there, that's it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you want the -- on the right here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's 75 immediately.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So is the left. The left is
overflow parking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and that's right, but--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you don't have any --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marla, will you sit up here and
make a motion for me? I'm going to leave. You know, this is
ridiculous --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, I just want to get clear --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to start using County
Manager's terminology.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine, because I just went
through this a few minutes ago with --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, there are several people
talking at one time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just wanted to get clear. I
know when you first said it, you said about the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did, and--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One at a time. One at a time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't vote on it unless I know what
we're talking about.
So -- but that's about exactly what Commissioner Henning said,
Page 347
March 22-23, 2005
75 is the limit. I mean, we've all agreed that that's the limit, right?
And that we always have to be able to accommodate that, even if it's
on the 4th of July this year. Right? I mean, whether it be on grassy
space or not, we have to be able to accommodate 75; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what you just said?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I just said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And if I could clarify--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And 21 car parking spots.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And 21 car parking spots.
And tell me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Coletta, if staff
determined that the diagram on the left would provide 75 boat and
trailer -- or car and trailer parking spaces, plus 21 vehicle parking
spaces, that would be perfectly acceptable --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- from day one, correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As Commissioner Henning
mentioned a little while ago, this should be -- this is an item that's best
left up to staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, the design. Okay. Do we
understand? Everybody understand?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if I'm -- I just want to
make sure, because this is so important.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is, it's very important.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if I vote on something and I'm
not exactly sure -- so in other words, if staff feels in the beginning
they want to install 39 parking spots and have this overflow parking
and then if they find two weeks later that they really need to build 55,
then they put the other pavers in?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I'm not concerned with
where the people park, it's just that we get 75 boats and trailers into
Page 348
March 22-23, 2005
this park on day one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're not concerned if it's like
paved over and all of the spots are there and ready, you're concerned
that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That we meet a need of75.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, just one other point of
clarification is that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Be real brief on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need this?
MR. BELLOWS: We thought Coconilla was bad yesterday.
The 75 is contingent upon the county being able to a obtain all
the state permits, too. So I think what we're looking at is a maximum.
And then leave it to staff and we'll just pick one of these two site plans
and that should be it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, no, I don't want you to just
pick one of the two site plans. I mean, I don't like that one on the
right. And so if we're doing that, I'm not going there, okay?
MR. BELLOWS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- yeah, I don't mind having that
green space, I think that we should have green space, but I don't think
that we should initially begin with 75 parking spaces already built in
there. Even staff themselves admitted that -- and suggested it should
be no more than 50. And -- because of the difficulty in turning around
and so forth. And I'm having a problem with this now.
Green space is good, and if we have that, and if we use that as
overflow as we do in the other parks, I'll go along with it. If we're not
doing that, if we're going to pave it all over right away, I don't go
along with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have got 22,000 boats in
Collier County that are registered.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 12,000.
Page 349
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we lost some --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twelve thousand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I think it's close to 22,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He said 12,000 boats on trailers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we have 22,000 boats that are
registered in Florida. Now we've got 12,000 boats that may be on
trailers. We're looking for 75 spaces here out of the 12,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And all of us have agreed--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going fishing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that the park should be able to
have 75 spots, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going fishing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The day this is open, it better be 75
marked spaces for boat trailers and 21 for cars. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what your motion says,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it doesn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. If
you understand it or don't understand it, I'm going to call the question.
We're going to vote on this thing, okay?
All in favor of this -- Commissioner Coletta's motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Okay, it doesn't pass.
All right. I'm going to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't like yours either.
Page 350
--------.,..""'..---.- ...
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to make it. I don't hear -- but
this is ridiculous. I recommend we just sell this property and take this
money and go get some boat parking. I think we can accommodate
more boats somewhere else. We'll just have to find it. And we'll take
the money and go do it and stop all this stuff.
So I don't know if there's even a second for that, but that's what I
would do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so then I'd like to make a
motion. And my motion will be that we plan this park with the
community in mind, and I say phase in and build the dedicated
parking spots for at least 39, unless staff feels that they need to start
off with 55, and so we see the map on the left side of the screen and
what it would look like with the overflow of parking there to hold 75
boats, ifnecessary, on the -- and if we need on a couple days a year,
we'll have it; obviously you're not going to need them all the time --
and with the 21 parking spaces, eliminating number 11 and number 12
and modifying number 13.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It dies for lack of a second.
Commissioner Halas, did you have your light on from before, or
are you asking a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This item has failed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we take a
lunch break. And I think this will give us some time to clear our
minds --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, it's time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And come back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's time.
Page 351
March 22-23, 2005
We'll take a lunch break, and we'll be back here at 12:55.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're back in session now. We
hope to get a county attorney and a county manager here very shortly.
But we're going to proceed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Margie's here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You'll do.
(Laughter. )
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, anybody want to volunteer to act
as a county manager? Okay, Mr. Schmitt in the back, okay.
We're going to resume our discussion. The public portion of this
hearing has been closed.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to make a motion.
I think it was good that we had a little time to clear our heads.
Yes, I'd like to make a motion -- I think we were all saying about
the same thing -- to approve the conditional use with a maximum of
75 boat trailer parking spaces and 21 car parking spaces, and let
county staff work out the design and come back to us then at the
proper time to submit that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion. Does that--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Excuse me, does the motion include the
changes to the stipulations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. Yes, eliminating
Stipulation 11 and 12 and having staff work out 13 with the
community .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And also the sidewalks on only one side.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes. Thank you. And no
crushed shells.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about enhancements,
landscaping enhancements?
Page 352
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is in there, isn't it? Yeah, I
hope so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that my second also reflects
what the motion-maker made in regards to the added requirements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Are there -- well,
Commissioner Henning, you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The landscaping, the
stipulations are per code, per Land Development Code, correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the stipulations?
Well, Commissioners, and maybe County Manager can correct
me if I'm wrong, I think we're all saying the same thing. We're all
saying that we want to provide for the residents over there, we want to
provide for the public. We want to get our bang for the buck.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's what I heard this morning as far as
the conversation is concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I think it fits everybody's
needs, and hopefully we can get beyond this motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me try to restate it and see if
I'm right, that it's a motion for approval of the staff's recommendation,
but with a maximum of 75 vehicle and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boat trailer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- trailer parking spaces and 21 vehicle
parking spaces, and with appropriate modifications to Stipulation
number 2 to permit the sidewalk to be placed on one side, the
elimination of Stipulations 11 and 12, and a clarification that number
13 will include only three special community events.
Have I missed anything?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And letting staff --
Page 353
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's -- I think that's implied,
because, you know, you're approving their recommendation, right?
Do you need more guidance than that, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. The last one, 13, is to accommodate three
special events.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's right, we did that one.
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coletta has his light on
first, if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I'm the only one that's
got his light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to clarify, so what
we're doing is we're -- it's going back to staff and it will come back to
us at another time for the -- but where the direction we're giving is 75
maximum. We're not -- we're phasing them in, we're not stating the
green area, we're leaving it up to them to come back and present it to
us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you have
something to say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't muck the waters any more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, no further discussion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
Page 354
March 22-23, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I still think we ought to sell it, but there's
no chance of that being approved, so I'm supporting it.
MS. FILSON: So it's a 5-0?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It will be unanimous.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen -- I'm all choked up. Ladies
and gentlemen, if you'd please exit the room quietly, we're going to
continue the meeting.
Item #7C
RESOLUTION 2005-133: PETITION V A-2004-AR-7003,
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY BRENT MOORE, AICP, OF
WILSONMILLER, INC., REQUESTS A I-FOOT AFTER-THE-
FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 5-FOOT WIDE
SIDEWALK STANDARD PROVIDED IN SECTION 6.06.02 OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TO ALLOW THE
CONTINUED USE OF THE EXISTING 4-FOOT WIDE
SIDEWALKS LOCATED WITHIN THE CARSON LAKES
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the next item is 7(C). This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. It's variance 2004-AR-7003,
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., represented by Brent
Moore, AICP, of Wilson-Miller, Inc, request a one-foot after-the-fact
variance from the required five-foot wide sidewalk standard provided
in Section 6.06.02 of the Land Development Code, to allow the
continued use of the existing four-foot wide sidewalks located within
the Carson Lakes subdivision Phase II.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
Page 355
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
MR. MUDD: Do you have to do -- David?
MS. FILSON: You have to do ex parte and swear in.
MR. MUDD: You have to do ex parte and you have to swear in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All right. Ex parte disclosures
on this item. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no disclosures on this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I had meetings, e-mail and
phone calls. My file is available for anyone that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One e-mail.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have no disclosures.
Will everyone who's going to give testimony in this item, please
stand and be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Now we have a
motion on the floor for approval by Commissioner Henning, a second
by Commissioner Coletta.
MS. FILSON: Close the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we'll close the public hearing and
we're going to have discussion by the commissioners.
Any discussion, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, hearing none, all in favor, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 356
.>>--------
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All those opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #7D
RESOLUTION 2005-134: PETITION CU-2003-AR-4326:
DIEUDONNE AND LUNIE BRUTUS REPRESENTED BY
RONALD F. NINO, AICP, OF VANASSE DAYLOR,
REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IN THE
VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL (VR) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A
CHURCH OR HOUSE OF WORSHIP FOR THE TABERNACLE
OF BETHLEHEM CHURCH PURSUANT TO LDC SECTIONS
2.04.03, TABLE 2 AND 10.08.00. PROPERTY IS AN 0.69-ACRE
TRACT LOCATED AT 305 3RD STREET SOUTH,
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 7(D), and it's also
a companion to 7(E). This item was continued from the March 8th,
2005 BCC meeting and is to be heard at the continuation meeting
today.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
Conditional use 2003-AR-4326, Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus,
represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP of Vanasse Daylor, requesting
conditional use approval in the village residential zoning district for a
church or house of worship for the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church,
pursuant to Land Development Code Section 2.04.03, Table 2 and
10.08.00.
Page 357
-- ~-_..~_.-~~_...,.~.......-,---_.~-""....",-~.-.,","-
March 22-23, 2005
Property is a .69-acre tract, located at 305 Third Street South in
Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida.
It's a companion item to Variance 2003-AR-4327.
Again, the same parties, represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP.
And they request the following variance in the VR zoning district for a
conditional use. And it's Land Development Code 4.02.02.E.
Number one, from the minimal one-acre lot area to allow an
existing structure on a .69-acre tract to be converted to a church use.
Number two, to reduce the front yard setback from the required
35 feet to 20 feet.
Number three, to reduce the required 33 parking spaces to 19
spaces.
Number four, to reduce the landscape buffer on the north and
south property lines from the required 15-foot Type B to allow a
10- foot wide Type B buffer.
And the property is still located in the same place that I
mentioned before.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you show me on that map
where it is, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, I need to swear in everyone.
Everyone who intends to give testimony in this item, please stand to
be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this will apply to both Items D and
E. With respect to ex parte disclosure, Commissioner Halas, for both
these items, D and E?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I have no disclosure on
either one of these items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I have had meetings,
e-mails and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
Page 358
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just heard about this at the last
meeting, any discussion that was at the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures for either item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And no disclosures from me.
Weare now ready for the petitioner's presentation.
MR. NINO: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Ron
Nino, I'm with the firm of Vanasse and Daylor, and we represent
Pastor Brutus, who purchased the property on Third Street South in
Immokalee quite some time ago. He actually made this application on
May the 15th, 2003, and have been in the review process ever since.
When Pastor Brutus -- and Pastor Brutus is that gentleman there,
and next to Pastor Brutus is his daughter Jenny, and a member of the
church.
When Pastor Brutus purchased this property, quite frankly, he
never thought for a moment that wasn't going to be allowed to build a
church -- convert the existing property into a church. And in fact,
Pastor Brutus made substantial interior renovation to the property and
was stopped by Immokalee code enforcement people when they
learned that his intention was to convert the property into a church.
And they advised him that at that time that he would need a
conditional use, and of course Pastor Brutus stopped all work and
began the process of seeking a conditional use.
Appreciate the fact that they've bought an existing building and
consequently that existing building has produced a number of
problems for them.
This church -- I don't need to tell you, this church does not have
any great amount of financial resources, and it has been a struggle for
them to get to this point.
The condition we find ourselves in relative to the need in
particular to apply for variances is the fact that we're dealing with an
existing building. The existing building is closer to Third Street South
Page 359
March 22-23,2005
than is otherwise required by the village residential zoning district.
I'm not so sure that we quite frankly need the variance, because
it's an existing nonconforming structure. However, we get into a
problem when remodeling begins to exceed 50 percent of value, and
we don't know quite frankly if we're anywhere near that, that it would
kick in the requirements as if it were a new building.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, we and staff also encourage
that, that we acknowledge that the current building in its current
location is closer to Third Street South than is required by the setback
that is -- that the 30-foot setback that's required by the VR zoning
district.
Similarly, if we're going to build a parking lot on this property in
the very limited amount of space that we have, it was absolutely
necessary that we get closer to the north and south property line. If
you look at the master plan in your agenda, the driveway, you'll see
there's a circular driveway, and that circular driveway, given the
amount of space that we have, leaves less land on the north and south
sides than is required for a buffer of 15 feet when you have a church
contiguous to other residentially zoned property.
Again, the church required a certain amount of parking based on
__ per the standards in your Land Development Code that would have
required 33 parking spaces, given the number of seats that will be in
this church, and the most we can physically get on this property is 19.
Now, all of those issues were carefully analyzed by your staff
and by the planning commission. And we need to advise you that
staff has addressed the issues. Staff has said in its report to you and to
the planning commission that in their opinion our application, as it
stands, if approved with the conditional use and the variances, would
be consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Plan
and the Land Development Code. And when they're saying that, they
said we've met the criteria that is precedent to their recommending
approval -- supporting the approval of the variances in the conditional
Page 360
~.,.---".--..,._---,-,_.~
March 22-23, 2005
use.
Again, your planning commission -- which I have to tell you, all
the years of experience I've had, this planning commission of yours is
much unlike planning commissions of yesterday; they know their job
and they do it very carefully and they do it well. That planning
commission reviewed your staff report, heard the testimony, and that
planning commission recommended 8-1 that you approve the
conditional use and 9-0 that you approve the variances.
I hope you will follow the lead of your planning commission.
We pray, in view of that, that you approve the petition with the
stipulations as recommended, as to allow the church to proceed with
the petition to the point where they could obtain approval of a site
improvement plan, hopefully subsequently a building permit.
We acknowledge that we have to resolve an issue that was raised
in your staff report about the possibility of a code violation. I ask you
not to use that as a basis to deny this petition, because to do so would
grievously impact the church's ability to ever come back and gather
sufficient resources, financial resources again to get a church where
they could practice their religion in. It would be like the death knell to
them if you were to disapprove of this petition.
We realize we need to take care of that matter, and there is ample
opportunity to take care of that matter at the site improvement plan
permitting phase.
And please, please, approve this petition so this church can
accomplish their dream. They've been working at it a long time. Don't
kill the petitioner because you might have a problem with the
messenger. Please, approve the petition.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is one I've been following
for some time, and there's a lot of public good in this. We're talking
about what was originally a flophouse in deplorable condition. We
Page 361
,_,__"<,_,,"_~,"....,..,,......._~H"___"_~__~'__~ .
March 22-23, 2005
have some responsible people that are willing to undertake the
renovation of this building and put it to a good public use.
Grant you, they have to still overcome some major obstacles, and
that has to do with the permitting process itself. And I think they
realize that there's code violations there that have to be addressed.
But when we get to the point that we close the public hearing, I'd
like to make a motion in favor of this and address that at that time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to make the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me close the public hearing.
Does anyone need to ask the petitioner any information, and does
staffhave a presentation to make?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think you need to hear from Kay,
because there are some stipulations on both the conditional use and the
variance that were talked about at the planning commission, and staff's
recommendation.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you. For the record, my name is Kay
Deselem and I am a principal planner with the Zoning and Land
Development Review Department. I also have with me today Susan
Mason, who is part of the environmental review staff. And my
presentation will be exceedingly brief.
I would note that we are recommending approval. We do have
conditions that we have recommended to you that mirror what the
planning commission had recommended. And Susan Mason is here to
address the differences between those two conditions, sets of
conditions. She was unable to attend the planning commission
meeting, so she could provide the information to you.
But we did recommend that it is consistent, both the conditional
use and the variance petition. And we believe that the proposed use
will be compatible with the area. And we have provided findings to
support the recommendations and the conditions that we have
provided to you.
Page 362
March 22-23, 2005
And I do believe that Susan Mason wants to make a brief
presentation to you as well. Noting she was not in the room when you
were swearing in the testifiers, so she needs to be sworn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So will you please swear at our
staff member.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record -- or good
afternoon. Susan Mason with the Environmental Services
Department.
I just did want to clarify a few of the items with the stipulations
that were put on to go to the planning commission.
Normally under the conditional use process we address
everything from jurisdictional wetlands to percentage of native
vegetation on-site. Some cases we do designate preserves, or -- that's
handled at the rezoning or the conditional use stage. And the actual
layout of the site plan and details are handled in the permits, are
handled under the SDP part.
I just did want to clarify that there is a -- what most people
consider to be wetlands is a nice swamp or marsh or something like
that. But the state does also regulate other surface waters, they're
called, and they can be things like manmade water bodies, lakes. And
that's what encroaches onto their property.
We were originally told in their EIS waiver request that they
would not be removing any vegetation, and vegetation has since been
cleared on this site, so it makes it hard to make any calculations on
how much vegetation was native and what was exotics.
And also, regarding the permits, we did supply information, and
the South Florida Water Management District will be looking into this
over the next week or so. They did say that that wetland would be
something that they would permit. So a compliance officer will be
looking into this.
But like I said earlier, all of this can be addressed at the SDP
Page 363
March 22-23,2005
stage, but we did just want you to know that there were some
jurisdictional wetlands on-site that have been partially filled, and those
will be handled as the agencies in the county requires.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions of the public or staff
by the commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'm going to close the public
hearing.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I need two motions: One for the
conditional use and one for the variance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve the
conditional use?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be my pleasure to
make a motion to approve the conditional use with the stipulations that
were put down by staff and the planning commission, which seem to
mirror each other exactly in the conditional use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, I believe also that the
CCPC wanted to make sure this is subject to this conditional use and
the variances. Just clarify that for me, the conditional uses and the
variances are contingent upon it remaining as a church. In other
words, if it turns into another use, these are no longer approved; is that
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's number two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
All right, then we have a motion by Commissioner Coletta, a
second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the conditional use with the
stipulations as contained in the staff recommendations.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Page 364
____._____._."'.____---..--.".w...---..
March 22-23,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Okay, let's go on to the second motion, which is approval of the
vanances.
Commissioner Coletta?
Item #7E
RESOLUTION 2005-135: PETITION V A-2003-AR-4327:
DIEUDONNE AND LUNIE BRUTUS, (REGARDING THE
TABERNACLE OF BETHLEHEM CHURCH), REPRESENTED
BY RONALD F. NINO, AICP, OF VANASSE DA YLOR,
REQUEST THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES IN THE VR
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE (LDC
S4.02.02.E.): 1) FROM THE MINIMUM ONE-ACRE LOT AREA;
TO ALLOW AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON AN 0.69 ACRE
TRACT TO BE CONVERTED TO A CHURCH USE; 2) TO
REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE
REQUIRED 35 FEET TO 20 FEET; 3) TO REDUCE THE
REQUIRED 33 PARKING SPACES TO 19 SPACES (LDC
S4.04.04.G. TABLE 17); AND; 4) TO REDUCE THE
LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH
PROPERTY LINES FROM THE REQUIRED 15-FOOT TYPE liB",
TO ALLOW A 10-FOOT WIDE TYPE liB" BUFFER (LDC
S4.06.02 TABLE 24). PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 305 3RD
Page 365
.. ~. _-----..""-c.-"""''"''.-.'.--'....- .
March 22-23,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be my privilege once
more to make a motion to approve the variance and to include those
recommendations made by staff, one through five.
MR. MUDD: One through six?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, one through six was the--
you're right, one through six, forgive me. Once again, it mirrors the
planning commission's recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any
discussion by Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seeing none, we'll call the question. All
in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
I think that was unanimous. Thank you very much.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2005-16: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE 04-12, THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, SECTION FOUR,
EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM CERTIFICATE
REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
nAIF, - A l)QflEJ)
Page 366
March 22-23, 2005
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to Paragraph 8, and
the first item is -- this item was continued from the -- and it's 8(A).
This item was continued to the 8 April-- excuse me, it's continued,
that's wonderful, 'til the 12th. And we'll talk about that next time we
meet.
Brings us to 8(C), it's a recommendation to adopt an ordinance
amending Ordinance 04-12.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I make a motion that we
approve this particular recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which one are we on?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8(C).
MR. MUDD: Yeah, this is a adopt an ordinance amending
04-12, the certificate of public convenience and necessity, Section 4,
exemption and exclusions for certificate requirements and providing
for an effective date.
And I was having a conversation from the last petitioner and he
asked -- he was asked if he could talk about the fee waiver, because
that's another issue. And I said if you could please bring that up at
another meeting, it would be more appropriate than doing it right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Henning
already seconded that, yes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner --
MS. FILSON: You need to close--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Halas. Was it Halas or Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, I have a question. I asked
the question before, but I don't think I ever got an answer to it. If I
did, I didn't see it. And it is on Page 4 of our packet. And it's on
Section 4(D).
How about explaining to me why that shouldn't also have the
Page 367
March 22-23, 2005
same exclusion for those people who do not require services.
MR. PAGE: Sure will.
Good afternoon, Commissioners, for the record, Jeff Page with
the Bureau of Emergency Services.
I did respond back to you, Commissioner, or actually to your
aide.
The state does not require agencies that are not operating in the
county outside of their operating area to obtain a COPCN, or convince
of need in a county that's neighboring it. In other words, Broward
County has the same language in their CO PCN ordinance that allows
them -- other agencies to come into their county, pick up a patient,
take them out of county or for, say, Lee County to bring a patient in
from Estero into Naples, they're not required to have a COPCN from
Collier County.
So there's no requirement from the state to do that. They have
their own CO PCN in the county that they're operating in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's suppose this is a Collier County
ambulance service and they're picking up someone in Collier County
to transport to Lee County that requires services.
MR. PAGE: They would have to have a COPCN from Collier
County, because they're operating or originating in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the phrase ambulances based
outside the county apply to both of these conditions?
MR. PAGE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, then, I understand.
Thank you.
Okay, we have a motion. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 368
_,__,_~_,_"___ ..... _"._~"""_"""""'M~"'>'_'_'____..______-'-_
March 22-23,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
MR. PAGE: Thank you.
Item #8D
RESOLUTION 2005-136: APPLYING THE ANNUAL MID-
CYCLE INDEXING ADJUSTMENTS TO AMEND THE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IMPACT FEE RATE
SCHEIlliLF, - A llOEIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 8(D). It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida applying
the annual mid-cycle indexing adjustment to amend the general
government building impact fee rate schedule.
And Ms. Amy Patterson, your impact fee coordinator, will
present.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ijust
have one statement to make for the record that wasn't included in your
executive summary. That is that we presented the information to the
productivity committee at their meeting on the 16th of March.
Obviously because of the deadlines for us submitting the information
for the agenda, that's not included, but they voted unanimously to
recommend the indexing as provided to you.
I also have a brief presentation, if you'd like, or if you have
questions concerning the information. This is all required by the
consolidated impact fee ordinance as adopted last year when we
Page 369
March 22-23, 2005
adopted the general government buildings impact fee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: I don't have any public speakers, so you can close
the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll close the public
hearing.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Opposition by Commissioner
Henning. Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2005-17: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS;
Page 370
March 22-23, 2005
SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE,
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 6 - INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SEC. 6.06.02 SIDEWALK, BIKE
LANE; CHAPTER 10 - APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND
DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SEC.
10.02.03.B.1. FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURE
AND REQUIREMENTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
MR. MUDD: The next item is number 8(E). It's an ordinance to
the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
amending Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land
development regulation for the unincorporated area of Collier County,
Florida, by providing for Section 1, recitals; Section 2, findings of
fact; Section 3, adoption of amendments to the Land Development
Code. More specifically amending the following: Chapter 6,
infrastructure improvements and adequate public facilities
requirements, including Section 6.06.02, sidewalks, bike lanes
requirements. Chapter 10, application review and decision-making
procedures, including Section 10.02.03.B.1, final site development
plan procedure and requirements; Section 4, conflict and severability;
Section 5, inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code;
Section 6, effective date.
Mr. Joe Schmitt, the administrator of Community Development's
Environmental Services, will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
Page 371
March 22-23, 2005
record --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is the second hearing, right?
MR. SCHMITT: But I want to defer it to Mr. White so he can
make an entry on the record.
MR. WHITE: Good afternoon and thanks, Mr. Schmitt.
Commissioners, Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney.
And as I'd indicated at the beginning of yesterday's meetings, this
is a continuation of the second of two public hearings before this
board in these chambers with respect to proposed LDC amendments
for a special cycle on sidewalks.
And to that end, as I said yesterday, I will at this time be entering
into the record the affidavit of publication that indicated yesterday was
the point in time for the public hearing at which you continued it until
today. And I find that that affidavit is legally sufficient for the public
hearing to proceed at this time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Joe, is there anything you have to read into the record?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, there is nothing to read into the
record. The changes that you directed at the last meeting have been
made. I can cite those, if you wish, but there's no need, it's already
part of the record.
If there are any questions or concerns, that pretty much concludes
what I need to present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the only thing I--
concern, I don't -- I have concern. The material, as I see, hasn't really
changed from our last meeting. But if we're allowing the record to
reflect of what the changes were -- example, Page 11 of 14, we still
have that the sidewalks must be four inches of cement over four inches
of compacted lime rock.
MR. SCHMITT: That was the direction after the last board
meeting for collectors and arterials. If you read further down the
Page 372
March 22-23, 2005
paragraph, it says for functional classification as local with no
functional classification, may be constructed at a minimum four
inches of such concrete over compacted subgrade.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The only thing I didn't
get was that's for collectors and arterials. I don't see that, where it says
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fourth line down, end of that line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fourth line?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, fourth line down.
MR. SCHMITT: It's concrete sided for roads with--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning. We have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have one speaker. George
Dondanville.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to ask for -- is there a second
to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, second by Commissioner Coletta.
And we're waiting for a public speaker.
MS. FILSON: I guess he isn't back, so we can close the public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have heard his comments, both at the
last meeting and at the town hall meeting concerning this particular
issue. So you might recall that he objected to the reduction in the
requirement for cul-de-sac streets with 25 or fewer homes. So that's
all I can tell you about that, okay?
So we're going to close the public hearing, and we are now going
to vote on this motion.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I wasn't at the last discussion
Page 373
March 22-23, 2005
of this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But I wanted to say that this
one makes me very uncomfortable. The part where payment in lieu of.
And, you know what, every time we do something like that somebody
-- you know, they have to pay money, but then the purpose is all
defeated. And what we were trying to do is -- the pathway committee
I know was trying to put sidewalks in. People are walking more now,
exercising more, bike riding more, and as soon as anybody has a way
out by just paying it off, then they don't have to require these things.
And it makes me very uncomfortable.
I think there are a lot of loopholes in here. When we have the
first, second, third and fourth footnotes here, it makes me
uncomfortable. And this whole thing, I'm not happy with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- Mr. Schmitt, the pathways
and sidewalk committee reviewed this?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what was their recommendation?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, they reviewed it. They were not
obligated to make a formal recommendation. As far as a Land
Development Code change, it's through the development services
advisory committee under the planning commission and to the Board
of County Commissioners.
The issue with the pathway advisory committee was -- and I
know Norm is not here, nor Diane, so I'm speaking on their behalf __
had primarily had to do with greenways and the whole greenway
debate and the issue of whether this amendment, as was originally
proposed -- and ma'am, if I could bring you back to the beginning of
this, this was part of an amendment to cure a problem where we had
with requiring a developer or a builder -- we had one classic example
where they were constructing a vestibule between a church and a
school at the cost of about $40,000. And if you applied the code as it
Page 374
March 22-23, 2005
is written today, would have been almost $200,000 worth of sidewalks
they would have had to construct. And that was just fiscally
oppressive and, you know, government at its finest in regards to trying
to provide -- take the Land Development Code and apply it literally to
require sidewalks.
The payment-in-lieu-ofwas a fair way of saying okay, you're
going to pay 25 percent of the cost of your construction into a
pathways fund and we will use that money to make systems
improvements, but you will not be penalized because you're making
property improvements and have to put sidewalks, let's say, around an
entire city block in Golden Gate City, or that type of example.
So the payment-in-lieu-of, if I can bring you back to when we
discussed this at a workshop, and we talked about this, and that was
back in December.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: So the payment-in-lieu-of program was that.
When this amendment was then drafted, it was an attempt to try
and deal with greenways. But greenways, that's an entirely different
debate in regards to the comprehensive pathways plan, coming back to
the board, which should be coming back in June. Once you approve
the comprehensive pathway plan, look at the cost of what it is going to
take to accomplish that. We will then bring this amendment back to
include greenways. But right now there was no legal foothold to
include greenways.
So Mr. Chairman, in answer to your question, the real issue was
the removal of greenways. The pathways advisory committee
objected to the removal of greenways, but frankly there was no legal
justification to leave the green way issue in.
One of the other issues of course they objected to were some of
the issues in here, especially in paragraph three and four, we debated
those quite extensively at our last public meeting and what you have
in front of you is what the board directed --
Page 375
March 22-23,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Footnote three and four?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, three and four, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I believe they had problems with
footnotes two, three and four. And they say that these weren't things
that were discussed at the workshop and these were not things that the
pathways committee were in favor of, nor did they feel that this should
be in here at all.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. But what you have in front of you
is was what was directed by the board to come back with the amended
changes. And if we want to debate the entire issue again, we certainly
can attempt to do so. But what's in front of you, this is a second
hearing of the LDC amendment. And after all the debates had been
entered on the record and we discussed specifically in regards to three,
primarily dealing with the projects that were 75 percent or more built
out, that they would be allowed to continue with the same
development criteria.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, that's kind of silly,
because if they're already following the LDC, then they would be
following it correctly anyway, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, ma'am, it's -- example. I'll use an
example where a case we're dealing with right now, Grey Oaks. Grey
Oaks is coming in to expand the boundaries of their PUD. Actually,
the residential. It's still their PUD, but they're converting some of the
properties from commercial to residential. But for all intent and
purposes, that project is built out. The development scheme
throughout the development are sidewalks on one side of the street.
Yes, if they were to come in today through the site plan, final plat
and plan approval process, we would apply the code as written and
say okay, now, for this small portion of residential that you want to
now convert, or commercial to residential, and now have this platted,
subdivided and sold as residential properties, you're going to have to
put sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Page 376
March 22-23, 2005
We're saying that in some instances where a PUD is 75 percent
built out, it makes sense just to allow them to complete the build-out at
the -- at the criteria.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I understand what you're
saying. I just want -- with the pathways committee, and I think this is
what they feel. I have a couple of friends on there that have contacted
me and they feel this way strongly, and they feel that there are enough
loopholes in here that it really circumvents all they're trying to do to
put sidewalks within the community. And it kind of defeats the whole
purpose.
And if you can tell me no, that's not true, I would feel a lot more
comfortable.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, I could tell you there are
certainly -- the payment-in-lieu-of, it's not a loophole, but it's a
process to allow for staff to review a proj ect and not penalize someone
for coming in and making property improvements.
And we have several examples where a developer was coming in
for improvements, and if we apply the code literally today and said
you had to build sidewalks on both sides of the street in and around
your property, it was fiscally oppressive. I mean, I can't use any other
word. It was just the cost far exceeded what the construction cost
would be.
And the payment-in-lieu-ofwas -- gave us the option for staff in
the review process to still provide funds to the pathway funds to allow
for systems improvements without making it economically -- an
economic disincentive to do improvements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but if you have to pay for the
sidewalk, installing it or pay you, what's the difference?
MR. SCHMITT: But, ma'am, you're empowering staff to review
projects and put some common sense into the review process. Right
now there is no common sense. You come in, the code says there will
be this, you put sidewalks in and around your entire project, and
Page 377
March 22-23, 2005
there's no -- you want to call it leeway, but there's no subjectivity in
applying the code. It is this or it's nothing.
And an applicant comes in the front door frustrated because,
again, staff is making me do this, the county is making me do this.
But it's the code, the way the code is written.
You passed this code a year ago, we knew it was going to be a
problem, but the pathways advisory committee, and I'm not speaking
bad against them, they campaigned hard for it, but it allowed us no
leeway. You either build the sidewalks or you take your plan and you
go home. This gives us some leeway to allow some -- put some
common sense into the review process.
Yes, it empowers staff. Certainly anything we do is subject to
the public record. The pathways advisory committee can certainly
come in and ask and review any plan, if they want to see what we've
approved and they object to it, they certainly have every right to bring
it back to you and say here is staff run amuck again.
But all this does is empower the staff to make some -- apply
some common sense decisions in regards to the staff review process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, two comments. One, I don't
want this to turn out to a Goodland boat ramp discussion.
The second thing is what I understand the payment-in-lieu-of is
doing exactly what the pathways want to do is connect the missing
links.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: These are not going into the
general fund or it's not going to Parks and Rec to provide boat launch
facilities or anything like that. It's going in there to correct those
missing links. And what I understand from Mr. Housch on several
occasions, that's what he had a problem was is the sidewalk to
nowhere.
MR. SCHMITT: A classic example is, as you recall out at White
Page 378
March 22-23, 2005
Lake -- is it White Lake or -- yeah, we required a sidewalk. I mean, so
what we're going to use these funds for, Commissioner, are to make
systems improvements to sidewalks, crossings, making our crossings
safe, allowing for bike access, curb cuts, those kind of things. And
that's certainly then -- and that is Ms. Flagg's -- that money will go to
Ms. Flagg and Ms. Flagg will apply that as she sees fit to meet the
needs of the entire system, and preclude some of these situations
where we have sidewalks to nowhere.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a motion on this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just couldn't remember.
MS. FILSON: You made the motion, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you made the motion. You want to
modify the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've already closed the public
hearing, so we'll call the motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Those opposed, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye, Commissioner Fiala is opposed.
MR. MUDD: I want to make sure that went 4-1 and not 3-2.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it went 4-1. Okay.
MR. MUDD: There was too many ayes there at the end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's getting late.
Item #8F
Page 379
March 22-23,2005
RESOLUTION 2005-137: PETITION SNR-2004-AR-6950,
VANDERBILT BEACH PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR T. SWEATMAN, REQUESTING
A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM WILLETT A VENUE TO
WILLET AVENUE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN CONNER'S
VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, UNIT 2, BLOCK N, IN
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST -
A.D.O.P.IED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
The next item is 8(F). It's a petition SNR-2004-AR-6950,
Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, represented by Arthur
T. Sweatman, requesting a --
MS. FILSON: Sweatman.
MR. MUDD: Sweatman, requesting a name change from Willett
Avenue to Willet Avenue, one's without a T, for property located in
Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit Two, Block N, in Section 32,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Sweatman?
Should I treat him as a speaker for five minutes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As a public petitioner.
MR. SWEATMAN: Arthur Sweatman. The reason I put this in
is on the original plat, Willett Avenue was spelled with two T's. I've
been coming down here since 1970 when my mother-in-law built on
Willett Avenue, and they bought the property in 1957. And I have
since inherited it.
But before I inherited it, I tried to get the name changed from two
T's, which I don't know what that is, to one T, which is a Willet bird.
And the Willet bird is consistent with the other names on the street
such as Seabee, Seagull, Flamingo, where Mr. Halas lives, and Egret
and Heron, and -- but no one wanted to change it until I wrote into the
newspaper and asked how to get it changed. And then they took down
Page 380
March 22-23, 2005
the old sign with one T and put up the sign with two T's so it matches
the plat.
Now, I would like to change it to one T, and they already have
the sign, so I think I should be at least reimbursed for the cost of the
sign. And I think that someone made a mistake in the beginning and I
think the county has covered it up for all these years.
I have here the original plans from my mother-in-law's house,
and it has Willet with one T on it in 1969. So that shows it goes back
that far.
And we finally got it at least so the name matches the plat, but I
want to change it to what it should be, which is the Willet bird with
oneT.
And I also would like to be reimbursed part or all of the $639 that
I had to pay to do this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When did you have to'pay this?
MR. SWEATMAN: When did I have to? That's part of the fees
that you have to do to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, when. When?
MR. SWEATMAN: When did I pay this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Date. Date.
MR. SWEATMAN: About two months ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. All right.
County Manager, what can you tell us about it?
MS. ERNST: For the record, I'm Joyce Ernst with the Zoning
and Land Development Review Department.
And this particular item was originally on the summary agenda;
however, it was pulled because I got a call from one of the property
owners who originally was in favor of the street name change, is now
opposing it.
And as regard to the -- the only thing that we put in the executive
summary was that according to our ordinance, the applicant is
required to pay for the street name change and not the county. And he
Page 381
March 22-23,2005
has requested that the county pay for it.
I believe the money that Mr. Sweatman is talking about is the
money that he submitted for the street name change petition, for the
advertising involved as well. And even though that one property
owner is now opposed to this petition, they still have 50 percent plus
one of the property owners abutting the street. There are 19 property
owners on the street, and, you know, taking away that one person who
is now opposing it, there are still 12 property owners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that person that's opposing it
here today to speak?
MS. ERNST: I have -- all I did was get a phone call. I requested
that she put it in writing and never did, and apparently --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we approve it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how about, can we make in
the motion, can I -- to change the street name and to get his money
back?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The staff recommendation is to deny it,
deny the request to refund the money. So are --
MS. ERNST: Pardon me, can I speak for a second? The money
he's requesting refunded has nothing -- you know, is not the street
name change. It's I guess the money he submitted for the petition and
for advertising. So, I mean, that's something that we haven't
recommended one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like him to get his money back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Close public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. MUDD: Can I ask a question here real quick, just to make
Page 382
March 22-23, 2005
sure I'm clear, before you start something that you really don't want to
get into?
There are certain monies that people, when they want to change a
name, that they must pay. And once it's done, we have to advertise for
the public hearing, and the county produces those dollars out of the
general fund, if the person doesn't pay.
So if you waive this, the next person that wants to do a name
change, there's precedent now that you can waive the fee. Now, if
you're waiving the fee --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I take that out of my motion.
MR. MUDD: If you're waiving the fee for--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All we'll do is just have it for the
name change only.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Sweatman did mention in his testimony that
there was a previous street sign, am I correct, sir, that had one T?
MR. SWEATMAN: Could I clarify this just a second?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. SWEATMAN: The original plat has two T's on it. As far
back as 1969, I know that that street sign has had one T on it. All the
maps and the post office, the local maps and the post office have
always kept the two T's. Nobody knows except the people who live on
the street and get their mail to two T's and the street sign says one T.
But the AAA map has one T on it because they follow the street sign,
okay?
Now, this is a county mistake. I think it's a county mistake
because the plat has two T's. Why did they put up a sign with one T?
Because they knew it was the Willet bird and not the Willett with two
T's. And I'm just trying to correct what I think it should be.
And I think the county is originally at fault, and I don't see where
I should have to pay for it. But I will, if you insist.
MR. MUDD: Now, if I could help. Now I'm confused. But I
understand that.
Page 383
March 22-23,2005
Now, there is something that we probably could help him with.
If you remember yesterday on the summary agenda, we reduced the
fee for name changes from $500 to about $125, if my memory serves
me correctly . We could charge him the new fee for the name change
and therefore, we could give him a refund of some $300 or so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the motion
reflect that this payment or disbursement of funds is in the public
interest, so that we don't have an issue with the clerk.
In regard to the two T's, based upon the history that's being
explained on this item right now, the plat is not created by the county,
the plat is created by the agent, such as the surveyor for the developer
at the time. So if the plat has two T's, then it sounds like the county's
done him the favor of having a one T sign in the meantime, at least at
some point in time. But it is the plat that comes to the board and is
ultimately approved by the board but not created by the board that has
apparently created this error from the start.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, we're going to call the
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in the public's best interest to
make this change in recommendations that are in the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed by no.
Aye, no.
Page 384
March 22-23,2005
So it's four-one.
MR. SWEATMAN: I thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you remember yesterday, 8(G)
was moved to the summary agenda at the board's direction, and you
voted on that particular item.
I believe we went all the way through it, but I believe there is
someone here to talk on public comment, if you so wish.
Item #11
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, I have one public comment person, Mr.
Kenneth Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Mudd, I wasn't here yesterday
complaining about nothing. I don't believe I was.
But anyway, you know, Mrs. Donna Fiala, you made an issue
yesterday about that place down there on Wiggins Pass because you
didn't want no hotels and no music and all that stuff carrying on like
that, it was better off?
Well, why don't you do me a favor, ma'am, and shut that bar
down across the street, because the man over there is working without
permits. He's working without a license. And if you could do that,
you could shut that rathole down. I mean, that's just the way I talk and
I can't help it. But, you know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's not permitted there?
MR. THOMPSON: This place across -- it's the old Tipsy
Seagull. So if you're not going to have no music over there, please,
don't have none over there.
Because I'm in bad shape. And this thing, I -- usually control
myself, but this thing has got me so bushwhacked, I don't know
whether I'm going or coming. I'm walking this far off the floor, this
Page 385
March 22-23, 2005
thing that the doctor's taken out of me and put it in my back.
And I got a neighbor lives next door to me, he don't know what
day and what time the garbage runs, so I called code enforcement
from Waste Management this morning and they come out and give
him a $100 fine. So he seems to like that. And he just keeps -- he's
the one that shot my pole light out and tried to burn the house down
three times, and -- he's a real nice neighbor, man, I'm telling you.
So he like to went to jail and I dropped the charges on him. And
I wish I had never. Ma'am, I wish had never. I should have put him in
prison. But the name is John Emery.
And all of these people that done my wife in back when we were
there for 10 years for that beauty parlor, they don't seem to understand
what they did to me is to stick a big sign up in front of my house.
Well, what you sow, you will reap.
So you've even -- you've even got cops that are doing me in, you
know. I got a charge against me for that boathouse now, for -- geez,
my wife and I, we went to the substation to talk to Scott Anderson
about this problem and we thought we had it whipped. So we went
back home and I told her before we get home just what's going to
happen now? What are they going to charge me with next?
So I get home and we find this woman had put a raft over the
fence, the gates are locked, put her son over the fence. She's used to
that. Knocks out windows and puts her son through windows and
goes and gets what she wants and takes him back out. So they found
out later that this is what she's doing.
So I think we pretty well get that whipped, but I don't know what
I'm going to get charged of next when I get home.
So I've had 11 deputies that charged me for things that, hell, I
don't even know, I'm not even around when it happens.
But this guy needs to be stopped over there at that bar. And like I
said, they even got me for downspouts on the house. Jesus Christmas,
I mean, you know.
Page 386
March 22-23, 2005
Ms. Arnold -- he's got a hedge -- Mr. Mudd there, one time I
couldn't get Ms. Arnold to do nothing for me and so I finally got him
to cut it. And from the road here, it's -- the light pole is on county
property. It's 10 feet out towards the road, out in the road. And I
cannot get her to cut it. Everybody else on that road is trimmed up
nice all the way around.
I think the people just don't like me because I'm all business,
because I never laid no sod but the green sod down yet. But I know a
lot of people have.
But I'm going to have to move out of that neighborhood if you
don't do something about that boathouse. 'Cause these people, they
can't get them evicted.
You ought to see, yesterday they sold a car, a Cadillac, with a tag
on it. They've had 23 tags, and they'll sell -- they'll sell you a -- all
you got to do is walk by there right now and he'll sell you a car real
cheap. He'll sell the tags with it. Now, I'm not kidding you.
So he figured, well, I got myself in trouble, don't have no more
plates, so he goes back and steal the plates off these guys' car that he
just sell. This is no joke. Then he took it off the Cadillac, now he's
got it on a Suburban. So now he's got an Oldsmobile station wagon,
he's had 14 different tags on it. He had a Vegas tag on it, he had a
Marine Corps tag on it. You name it.
So I went to Guy Carlton. And I'm just about to lose it. Now,
this guy's either going to have a go or I am, one. And they can't get
him evicted.
And I think that's a batch of born lie. Because Joe Jackson is
saying he owns it, and he does not. It's Dave Steinburg that owns it.
So if you got this man in there -- Joe Jackson can't evict somebody
that don't own the property. It's got to be Dave Steinburg.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir, I thank you.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, sir.
Page 387
March 22-23,2005
Item # 15 - Continued from earlier in meeting
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
County Attorney, do you have anything you want to add?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: I'd like to bring up the item on Burning Tree Road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Feder, on -- you, the board asked during
closed session yesterday when that particular road needs to be fixed
and/or the light needs to be removed. And I asked Mr. Feder to get
that information for you to present it today.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
To give a very quick overview, and then any questions you have,
I'll try to answer. As part of the annexation of Royal Poinciana quite a
few years ago, the City of Naples established that they would improve
Burning Tree Road and remove the signal that exists at Royal
Poinciana today and have the signal at Burning Tree and Solana,
which is just north of that signal, very close to it, become the signal
because the entranceway to Royal Poinciana would be moved to that
Burning Tree/Solana signal.
For some time now we've noted that we need to pull out that
signal at Royal Poinciana, and we're about to do so, but the question --
the issue was that we're requested to wait until the improvements are
made to Burning Tree. We were told at that time they had design
plans and they were going to make the improvements.
What we've now heard is they're starting to work with our
designer who's doing Goodlette-Frank Road between Golden Gate and
Page 388
March 22-23,2005
Pine Ridge. And while they've had it in their CIP for some time,
they're thinking about getting it designed by that same designer and
then possibly trying to make it part of our project.
We're open to work with them, if that's what they're going to pay
for. What we do have to do, though, is make improvements to the
intersection at Burning Tree and Solana as part of our Goodlette- Frank
proj ect. At that time, we will remove the signal at Royal Poinciana if
the issues are not resolved before that time. And honestly, we thought
that was going to be a year or two previously.
So that's just a quick overview, and I'll be happy to answer any
questions you have.
MR. MUDD: Norman, they had a question. When do we want to
give the city a deadline to have the improvements made before the
light will come out?
MR. FEDER: Our schedule on the Goodlette-Frank Road project
has two phases. The very first phase is the bypass behind the bank off
of Golden Gate onto Goodlette- Frank for the right turn northbound
free flow. That will go up to the new signal that's going to be there at
Wilderness, and that will be the first phase.
And we wanted to get out of that intersection, make the
improvements with the interchange, the overpass and with the season
for Coastland Mall and other issues. So we're scheduled, as you can
see here, for phase one to be done by November of this year. And
that's an aggressive schedule, as you can well tell.
We then have about a year more in the overall project, looks like
at this time. And so in answer to your question, we would probably be
in a position to remove that signal sometime in the mid-summer to
very beginning of fall of '06. So if it's not removed by then, it will be
removed by our proj ect.
Now, we could try to remove it faster, but the key is we need to
try and make sure we have the improvements made at at least the
intersection, some few hundred feet back, if it's not already done, on
Page 389
March 22-23, 2005
Burning Tree at Solana. We don't want to remove that signal, force
more traffic up to that Burning Tree, if it cannot operate well with left
through and a right turn for exit, if you will.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, is it the Commission's pleasure for
me to write a letter to the City of Naples stating that on 1 September,
2006, that that particular light is going to be removed?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do I see three nods?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is one thing that was
brought up in your town hall meeting about a code enforcement
action, and we were supposed to get a report at this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's going before the code board
this week --
MR. MUDD: To talk about tree topping.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, tree topping. Yes, hat racking.
What has happened with that? I was advised by the county
attorney that there was not much I could do with respect to that. So as
far as I know, it's going before the board of zoning appeals.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I received some pictures of the hat
racking that was done. Staff basically determined that the hurricane
didn't do all of that. You didn't see any other stress issues with the
tree, except it really did get trimmed pretty badly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was told in Ames' reports that the trees
had died and that an arborist had confirmed that the trees were dead.
And clearly the trees are not dead. So I'm wondering how that
mistake occurred. And what is it that he has been charged with doing?
If the trees have not been damaged or they're not dead, what has he
really done? Do we know?
Page 390
March 22-23,2005
MR. MUDD: No, sir, not off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you just tell me what you're
talking about?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, there was an incidence where a
gentleman trimmed some trees between his building and another
building. And he severely trimmed the trees. And the staff said that
they were trimmed illegally and that they -- the trees had died. And
an arborist had confirmed that they were dead. But yet an on-site visit
and the pictures will show that the trees are not dead at all.
So I'm trying to figure out -- and we asked these questions at the
town hall meeting and Joe was going to take this issue and deal with
it. And Commissioner Henning is asking what the update is.
I had originally planned to meet with the individual, but on being
advised by the attorney that there's nothing I could do, there was no
action I could take until it is heard by the board of zoning appeals,
then I did not meet with the gentleman --
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could just -- and I'm doing
this from memory.
I sent Mr. Mudd an e-mail with pictures and everything related to
it. What Mr. Mudd said was in fact correct. You do have an
ordinance against hat racking, basically butchering, if you want to put
it that way, butchering trees.
There was an arborist's letter. The arborist opined that the trees
would die. It was obvious from the pictures that he showed at the
town hall meeting that the trees did bud and come back to life.
I spoke with the individual. I said there was nothing really the
board could do unless they wanted to take this matter from the Code
Enforcement Board. I asked the county attorney to opine on that. Ms.
Jennifer Belpedio did. She pretty much said that it would not be
certainly in the board's best interest to withdraw this -- to take this
action from the Code Enforcement Board. It's scheduled for the end
of March at the Code Enforcement Board.
Page 391
March 22-23, 2005
I spoke with the gentleman in regards to the only thing he could
do is do what he was going to do in front of you and ask -- explain the
extenuating and mitigating circumstances around this issue and ask for
the Code Enforcement Board to render an opinion in regards to -- I
think what this is going to come down to is were they hat racked?
Yes. Did the trees die? No.
The issue with the code enforcement case is nothing more than
you illegally trimmed the trees which puts stress and other -- but the
trees have come back to life, and since they've pretty much budded
and are growing branches again, the problem he's going to have is --
follow on is when that happens, the trees become top heavy and are
prone to overturning in heavy winds. But he can deal with that
through an arborist and proper trimming.
The citation was to replace the trees. Naturally, if the trees are
not dead they will not have to be replaced.
But putting all this aside, I think it's in this board's best interest to
not usurp the authority that you've empowered your Code
Enforcement Board to do and that is to adjudicate these cases.
I can turn to the county attorney if they want to opine in regards
to you stepping on the toes of your Code Enforcement Board.
MR. WHITE: I'm going to kindly not take that offer from Mr.
Schmitt. However, I will instead offer you some factual information
I've just learned. I spoke to the Assistant County Attorney, Ms.
Belpedio, that's responsible to review this matter. She's told me that
it's coming before the CEB on the 30th of this month, the next CEB
hearing, and that she has found the notice of violation to be legally
sufficient, which is the indication that we believe that the case is
appropriate for prosecution at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, one thing
that's not mentioned today that was mentioned at your town hall
meeting, the tree was trimmed because of Hurricane Charley.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the allegation.
Page 392
March 22-23, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, if that's true and the
gentleman is cited for removing hazardous vegetation, then I mean, I
just have a real problem with county government, if that's true. And I
don't know what I could do --
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the pictures we have clearly
indicate that they were rounded and hat racked far more than any
debris cleanup. And that's your code. That's the trained arborist's
determination.
You certainly -- we can change the code or we can -- but I'm
following what you're saying, but it's a matter, I think, really for the
Code Enforcement Board to deal with. Because the pictures and the
citation pretty much validate that they went far beyond what he should
have in regards to the proper tree trimming.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But ifhe -- and maybe it's just
me. If the issue is it was damaged in the hurricane, damaged in such a
way that the proper trimming of the tree is not going to be a sightly
tree, then what good is the code?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you looked at the pictures, and I
don't have them here right this second, but there were like five trees, I
believe. And one might have been damaged, but he made all the other
four look like the one that was damaged, okay, so they all looked the
same, like they had the same haircut. It wasn't just one tree that we're
talking about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the military haircut, huh?
MR. MUDD: High and tight, sir. High and tight.
And he pretty much -- except this was really low and tight. All
the trees look the same. I mean, that's exactly the way they were cut.
MR. SCHMITT: And I have to tell you, I talked to him, I think
he has a good case. He can present that to the Code Enforcement
Board, explain the situation, bring the pictures in, show that the trees
have frankly revived, and let the board rule. If he feels that he was
unjustly --
Page 393
March 22-23,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there opportunity for no harm, no
foul?
MR. SCHMITT: From the Code Enforcement Board?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think the Code
Enforcement Board has got discretion, and they will probably figure
this out. Leave it up to them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hopefully.
MR. WHITE: The only other discretion that would exist legally
would be in the circumstance where matters of enforcement are within
the discretion of the county manager. It certainly seems at this point
that a determination's been made on the staff's side that it's appropriate
to prosecute, and legally speaking, as I've indicated, is as well. So--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Is that all, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, if you would have seen what
FP &L did to my avocado tree, not only did they hat rack it, but then
they took all the avocados off of it as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And sold them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That made me so mad.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get them before code enforcement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, I wanted to say tonight is
my town hall meeting, and I hope -- I know I'll see most of you there.
Sorry about that. But anyway, after this two day meeting. But
anyway, tonight is the town hall meeting. We'll try and make it fun
and interesting. Hope everybody can come from the East Naples area.
And lastly, I wanted to tell you that I'm still working on this 1-75
six -laning. Come to light that more and more things and issues are
coming to light. And one of them is that not only has the new
development not been counted in, nor has the development along
Davis and Rattlesnake Hammock, and both of those roads will be
Page 394
March 22-23,2005
six-laned and pouring into 951.
Joe's going to help me on getting those figures as well. I think by
producing all those figures and getting it to SWFTI tomorrow, who
I'm going to be working with, just maybe we can handle this thing.
When I talked with the FDOT, they said it's on their 2030 list.
And I said geez, that's a little bit long to wait, especially when what
I'm really concerned about is we're eagerly looking forward to some
development coming into that area. There's some good things coming
our way. I don't want to see it stopped.
But if that road is impassable, and it's that way right now, and if
they only six -lane it to Golden Gate Parkway and don't at least give us
some relief coming off of it, from what I understand, it even stacks up
on 1-75 at night when people are trying to get back on -- or trying to
get back off of that road.
I'm afraid of a moratorium, quite frankly. And I'm very
concerned. And this is what I'm telling the SWFTI people as well.
I've spoken with Mike Davis and I've spoken with Dudley
Goodlette, and I believe that they feel it's also going in the right
direction, and they're going to try and help me from the state point of
view. So I just wanted to keep you guys updated.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have nothing. So we are adjourned,
thank you -- oops, I'm sorry, David? We asked you earlier.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you did. And I appreciate the opportunity
to come up with an afterthought.
I just want to report that from last Thursday's foray to
Tallahassee that Commissioner Henning and I had an opportunity to
speak with Palmer Mason, working through Burt Saunders' office.
Page 395
March 22-23, 2005
Palmer Mason, legislative coordinator for the DEP relative to the
Plantation Island bill that we have going forward.
And we were put in a conference call both with our staff, Stan
Litsinger, Dave Weeks and Marjorie Student back here, but also with
an attorney and two of their planners with DEP, and they assure us
that they believe that we can achieve the desired result for those units
one, two and three of Plantation Island through an agreement that they
can put together called a 380 Agreement that would not require the
legislative process.
And of course we met with Mr. Goodlette and Mr. Rivera and
others, mentioning this along the way, the fact that they're all
concerned about the process, legislative process because DCA had
indicated a concern about the legislation and the precedent of
legislation.
So I wanted you to know, and this is an opportunity to inform
you all that hopefully this afternoon I'll be getting the final -- what I
consider to me a final confirmation from the DEP and DCA that we
don't have a problem with going this interlocal agreement route with
them.
And effectively then, I would be notifying our legislators,
legislative delegation, that they can not have to contend with or
continue with the proposed legislation House bill, Senate bill on the
Plantation Island.
Now, I didn't want to cut that cord too quickly, and I'm trying to
hold DEP to the fire this way so I have an absolute assurance from
them before I would communicate with Representative Goodlette and
Senator Saunders and the other, and Mr. Rivera.
But I just wanted to let you know that that's where we are. And
I'm not necessarily asking for you to empower me to cut the cord, but
in essence, I don't want to do anything that you wouldn't want me to
do as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, David. All right, we are
Page 396
March 22-23, 2005
adjourned. Thank you very much.
***** Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and! or adopted: * * * * *
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2005-116: PETITION A VESMT2003-AR5314 TO
VACATE, RENOUNCE, AND DISCLAIM THE EASEMENTS FOR
PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT OF WAYS RECORDED BY SEPARATE
INSTRUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN THE SUMMIT PLACE
DEVELOPMENT IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
Item #16A2
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH LEO. A
TEGETHOFF AND SHIRLEY R. TEGETHOFF FOR 5.54 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $76,300 - AS
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2005-117: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADW A Y (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SOUTHWEST PROFESSIONAL
HEAL TH PARK" THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED -
Page 397
March 22-23, 2005 '
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2005-118: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "BERKSHIRE PINES PHASE ONE"
THE ROADW A Y AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE
Item #16A5
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRIARWOOD UNIT
ELEVEN, APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVING THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Item #16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "MADISON PARK
PHASE TWO", APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVING THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Item #16A7
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, (CRA),
APPROVING THE 2004 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CRA,
DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE THE ANNUAL REPORT WITH
Page 398
March 22-23, 2005
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) AND TO
PUBLISH NOTICE OF FILING THE REPORT - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR "FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE 2A GOLF
COURSE" - W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECllRITY
Item #16A9
APPROVAL OF THE RECENTLY AMENDED CONSERVATION
COLLIER ACTIVE ACQUISITION LIST AND DIRECTING
STAFF TO ACTIVELY PURSUE THE ADDED A-CATEGORY
PROPERTY (MCINTOSH TRUST) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16AI0
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "HERITAGE BAY",
APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVING THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-
W /S11EIlLAIIONS
Item #16All - Continued to the April 12, 2005 BCC meeting
CREATING THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY
Page 399
March 22-23, 2005
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2005-119: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN CODE OF LAWS SECTION 2-11 - AS
Item #16A13
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUARRY PHASE 1",
APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVING THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-
W /S11EIlLAIIONS
Item #16Bl
PURCHASE OF PARCEL NO. 103B REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STORMW ATER RETENTION AND
TREATMENT POND NECESSARY FOR THE WIDENING OF
COUNTY BARN ROAD FROM DAVIS BLVD. TO CR-864
(PROJECT NO. 60101, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
NO. 33) FISCAL IMPACT: $126,950.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item # 16B2 - Continued to the April 12, BCC meeting
PURCHASE OF PARCEL NOS. 119,719 AND 719A REQUIRED
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIX-LANING OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
TO IMMOKALEE ROAD (PROJECT NO. 65061, CAPITAL
Page 400
March 22-23, 2005
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 37) FISCAL IMPACT:
Item #16B3
BID #05-3692, "TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SIGNAL
COMPONENTS" AWARDED TO TRAFFIC PRODUCTS,
INCORPORATED; SPECIALTY LIGHTING SOLUTIONS;
TEMPLE, INCORPORATED; TRAFFIC PARTS,
INCORPORATED AND TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
Item #16B4
TWO ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEMENTS WITH GOLDEN GATE
REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND CRYSTAL LAKE
R.V. PARK - SIGNAGE TO COME FROM EXISTING
lliYENIOR y
Item #16B5 - Moved to Item #101
Item #16B6
RESOLUTION 2005-120: RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
211 FOR A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP) AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $262,500.00, FOR THE PURCHASE AND
INSTALLATION OF A PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE WITHIN THE C.R. 951 RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER THE
GOLDEN GATE OUTFALL CANAL; (2) EXECUTING A
RESOLUTION FOR THE SAME FUNDS TO BE USED FOR THE
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF TWO PREFABRICATED
Page 401
March 22-23, 2005
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES LOCATED OVER THE SANTA
BARBARA CANAL LOCATED ON GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y
(CR 886); (3) ADVANCING THE $262,500.00 AND THE
COUNTY'S CONTRIBUTION OF $75,000 FOR DESIGN AND
$37,500.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION FROM THE GAS TAX FUND
AND (4) APPROVING FUTURE FISCAL ANNUAL COSTS OF
THE BRIDGES' MAINTENANCE AND ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16B7
BID #05-3771 "SECRETARIAL SERVICES FOR ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETINGS" AWARDED TO MANPOWER
TEMPORARY SERVICES-FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
EXEENDIII1RE..02S,OOO .00
Item #16B8
THE UPDATED, REVISED SCHEDULE FOR THE "COLLIER
COUNTY LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN"
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006 AND 2007-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B9
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $1,354,447.90
BETWEEN BUDGETED PROJECTS AS PART OF A MID-
YEAR STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ADJUSTMENT, TO FUND BOTH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
AND REGULAR MAINTENANCE PROJECTS UNDER FUND
Page 402
March 22-23, 2005
Item #16Cl
RESOLUTION 2005-121: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FORA
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMA.R Y
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2005-122: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16C3
SA TISF ACTION FOR A CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMP ACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT FISCAL IMP ACT IS
$10.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - AS
Item #16C4
Page 403
_."",...,._,.,_w__".."._~...,_,_."..,__","_.~.,,,,,,_.,_.......,."--.._.""",._-~,--,_.,,-,..~
-~~--,~"-"~.""'-~_._"">>,~..--~-_.__.__..,---._...'"-".-'".,...~.
March 22-23, 2005
AN ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH OWEN AYRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNDER RFP #04-
3723, PROJECT #725163, IN THE AMOUNT OF $167,000.00 AND
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS AMONG
WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE ELEMENTS WITHIN
PROJECT #72516 - TO OPTIMIZE AND CONSERVE PUBLIC
Item #16C5
BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $93,747.96, AND
THREE (3) WORK ORDERS UNDER RFQ #03-3522, "TESTING
SERVICES FOR INFLOW AND INFILTRATION STUDY", IN
THE AMOUNT OF $266,357.96, WITH ADVANCED
UNDERGROUND IMAGING, LLC AND SEVERN TRENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. UNDER THE NORTH
COUNTY INFLOW AND INFILTRATION STUDY PROJECT,
PROJECT #725021 - TO SUPPORT FIELD-TESTING WORK
DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
THAT WILL LIMIT GROUNDWATER AND STORM WATER
Item #16Dl
BID #05-3720, AT AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE
OF $150,000.00 AWARDED TO PRO SOURCE ONE, HELENA
CHEMICAL COMPANY, REGENERATED RESOURCES, AND
LESCO, INC. AS PRIMARY, SECONDARY, AND TERTIARY
VENDORS FOR PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF FERTILIZER-
Item #16D2
Page 404
"'...."''''''''''.,,',;;"_,,.~,~,,~"._..,~"_..._...__..,.... ......~~..._.__"_,...,""^,.,"_,,,,...,,. ".,%,__"_,_,~...o_"._."..,.",,,,.,,"...._",________~_'__~_.-.,--
March 22-23, 2005
AN APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF APPLICATION
FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN, PERMITTING THE COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY TO APPLY FOR A $500,000 STATE
CONSTRUCTION GRANT FOR THE SOUTH REGIONAL
Item #16D3
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $16,400.00 FROM AN INSURANCE PAYMENT
COVERING DAMAGE TO THE BOARDWALK AT BAREFOOT
BEACH PRESERVE - TO KEEP FACILITIES IN GOOD REPAIR
Item #16D4
A MODIFICATION TO PURCHASE ORDER #4500035141 WITH
NAPLES WHOLESALE BAIT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000.00,
EXTENDING THE SOLE SOURCE VENDOR DESIGNATION
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2006, AND APPROVING A SEVEN-
DAY PAYMENT SCHEDULE - TO SELL LIVE BAIT TO THE
Item #16D5
AUTHORIZING THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR TO SIGN THE
"LET'S TALK ABOUT IT: JEWISH LITERATURE" GRANTS
APPLICATION TO THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
FOR A SERIES OF BOOK DISCUSSION PROGRAMS - AS
Page 405
March 22-23, 2005
Item #16D6
PUBLIC PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ROYAL
PALM COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, INC. TO PROVIDE
PARKING FOR THE COUNTY-OPERATED BASEBALL FIELD
LOCATED ON WARREN STREET AT A COST OF $50.00 FOR
RECORDING THE AGREEMENT - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16D7
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST HERITAGE, INC., AS
AMENDED, FOR USE OF THE NAPLES RAILROAD DEPOT AS
A BRANCH FACILITY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM-
Item #16El
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
SENATOR BURT SAUNDERS FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF
OFFICE SPACE FOR THREE YEARS FORA TOTAL REVENUE
OF $30.00 - EXTENDED TO JANUARY 2, 2008, WITH A FOUR-
YEAR RENEWAL OPTION PENDING THE SENATOR'S RE-
ELECII.ON
Item #16E2
REJECTION OF ALL RESPONSES RECEIVED UNDER BID 05-
3776, FASTENERS AND WHEEL WEIGHTS FOR FLEET- TO BE
RF,-SOUCIIED
Item #16E3
Page 406
March 22-23, 2005
RESOLUTION 2005-123: AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE DEED CERTIFICATES FOR THE
SALE OF BURIAL PLOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL
GARDENS CEMETERY DURING THE 2005 CALENDAR YEAR-
Item #16E4
REJECTION OF ALL RESPONSES TO RFP #05-3748, ONSITE
PRIMARY CARE SERVICES - STAFF WILL REVIEW
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS AND BIDDING APPROACHES FOR A
POS S lB.LRRE.::BID
Item #16E5
DECLARING CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AS
SURPLUS, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE SURPLUS
PROPERTY ON APRIL 9, 2005, AND AUTHORIZING THE
DONATION OF CERTAIN SURPLUS PROPERTY TO
REACHOUT EVERGLADES AND COPS ASSOCIATION, INC.-
Item #16E6
BID #NO. 05-3764 AWARDED TO UNITED MECHANICAL, INC,
AS PRIMARY AND HILL YORK SERVICE CORP. AS
SECONDARY, FOR THE PURCHASE, REPAIR, PARTS AND
Item #16E7
Page 407
March 22-23,2005
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
Item #16Fl
A SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS EASEMENT FROM THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT
TRUST FUND (BOARD OF TRUSTEES) FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT ALONG THE
SHORELINE OF HIDEAWAY BEACH ON MARCO ISLAND, AT
A COST NOT TO EXCEED $61.00 - TO COMPLY WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(FDEP) CONSOLIDATED JOINT COASTAL PERMIT
REQIlIREMENTS
Item # 16F2
AWARD RFP #05-3772, FOR COLLIER COUNTY TOURISM
WEBSITE DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE, TO MILES MEDIA
GROUP (ESTIMATED MAXIMUM CONTRACT AMOUNT
Item #16F3
BUDGET AMENDMENT #05-263 FROM COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (001) - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16Gl - Moved to Item #14A
Item #16G2 - Moved to Item #14B
Page 408
.... -- ,----- -~..,,"~_._--
March 22-23, 2005
Item #16Hl
REQUEST BY COMMISSIONER COLETTA, FOR PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF
COLLIER COUNTY'S MEMBERSHIP MEETING AND MIXER,
ON MARCH 31, 2005, TO BE HELD AT THE REGISTRY
RESORT & CLUB THIS EVENT WILL ALLOW COMMISSIONER
COLETTA TO REPRESENT DISTRICT 5 AND LEARN MORE
ABOUT "THE ECONOMIC TRENDS IN 2005 AND FORWARD"
FROM SPEAKER DR. DAVID M. JONES AND INTERACT WITH
OTHER GOVERNMENT REPRESENT A TIVES AND
COMMUNITY LEADERS - $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 409
__,,_..._.~,_._._4'_~_"'____'~"'_~'""
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March 22, 2005
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for January 1. 2005 through January 7. 2005.
2. Disbursements for January 8. 2005 through January 14.2005.
3. Disbursements for January 15.2005 through January 21. 2005.
4. Disbursements for January 22. 2005 through January 28.2005.
5. Disbursements for January 29. 2005 through February 4.2005.
6. Disbursements for February 5. 2005 through February 11. 2005.
7. Disbursements for February 12.2005 through February 18.2005.
8. Disbursements for February 19.2005 through February 25. 2005.
B. Minutes:
1. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for February 16,2005;
Minutes of January 19,2005. .
2. Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 17,
2005; Minutes of January 20, 2005.
3. Radio Road Beautification MS.T.U. - Agenda and Minutes for February
15,2005; Minutes of January 18,2005.
4. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda for March 3, 2005 and Minutes for
Feb. 3, 2005.
5. Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes for January 13,2005.
6. Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee - Agenda and
Minutes and February 16,2005.
H:Data/Format
,...,',.._,_,..--".----,-o--..-.--.~'-~
7. Collier County Aiqmrt Authority - Minutes of February 14, 2005; Voting
Conflict Form for Robert E. Doyle.
8. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. -Agenda and Minutes for
March 9, 2005; Workshop Agenda for February 23, 2005.
9. Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda and Staff Report for March 2,
2005; Minutes for February 2,2005.
10. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for March 3, 2005;
Minutes for January 20, 2005 and February 3,2005.
11. Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee - Minutes
of February 15, 2005.
12. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for March 9, 2005 and
Minutes for February 9,2005.
13. Development Services Advisory Sub-Committee - Budget and Operations
Sub-Committee - Agenda and Minutes of February 9, 2005.
14. Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for March 2,2005; Minutes of February 2,
2005; Statement of Revenues and Expenditures.
a) Budget Sub-Committee - Agenda for February 16, 2005; Minutes
of January 19,2005 and February 16,2005.
b) Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Minutes of February 2, 2005
15. Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for February 23,2005;
Minutes of January 26, 2005.
16. Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda and Minutes of
December 16,2004; Agenda and Minutes of January 27, 2005.
C. Other:
1) Letter to Robert Murray from Hole Montes, dated February 8, 2005, Contract
# 04-3698 for the Airport Authority Consulting Services.
2) Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee - Minutes for January 18,2005.
H:DataIFormat
March 22-23, 2005
Item #16Jl
A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED
REP()RT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS FROM FEBRUARY
19, 2005 TO MARCH 4, 2005 SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZED THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES, A COpy OF
THE DETAILED REPORT IS ON DISPLAY IN THE COUNTY
MANAGER'S OFFICE, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, 2ND
FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, NAPLES,
ELQRIDA
Item #16J2
RECOGNIZING $1,000,000 OF RESERVES IN FUND 178, COURT
INFC)RMATION TECHNOLOGY FEES AND INCREASING THE
TRA.NSFER TO THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE
SAME AMOUNT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SI..Thl1MAR Y
Item #16Kl
ALLOWING RONALD 1. ECHOLS, PH.D., MARY W. ECHOLS
ANI) JOHN CUMBERLIDGE TO GO ON TO LAND RECENTL Y
ACQUIRED THROUGH THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROGRAM FOR
GEC)LOQICAL RESEARCH PURPOSES - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUIIYE_SUMMAR Y
Item #16K2
Page 410
March 22-23, 2005
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCELS 128,728
AND 130 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
STONEBRIDGE COUNTRY CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3588-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT #66042)-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARy
Item#17A
ORDINANCE 2005-13: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6888, MDG CAPITAL
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT L. DUANE,
AICP, OF HOLE MONTES, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO MIXED
USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MUPUD) FOR A
PROJECT KNOWN AS THE ARROWHEAD PUD FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO CHANGE
THE PUD TYPE TO A MIXED USE PUD, CHANGE THE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REGULATIONS,
UPDATE THE LDC CITATIONS, AND ADD LANGUAGE TO
ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITMENTS. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 307.4 ACRES IS
LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD
AND THE PROPOSED CARSON ROAD EXTENSION, IN
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST; AND IN
SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
Item #17B - Moved from Item #8G
ORDINANCE 2005-14: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4942 CONQUEST
DEVELOPMENT USA, LC. REQUESTING A PUD TO PUD
REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
Page 411
March 22-23, 2005
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND APPROXIMATELY 1 0/4
MILES SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41), FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS SILVER LAKES, IN SECTION 10 & 15,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
ELQRIDA
****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2: 14 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL.
':J:..~ ~
FRED COYLE, Cha an
'0"
ATTEST. ",<'~;"."S'D'~~I~>'"
\~~ II(~~;;" \::.1 ........ '.(,.I,,,,", '.,
DWIG~1;;j1::.~qp.~.,.CLERK
{ fl (t;~t;.':'.' .)~~::;~. -
, It.. L)';~ i4zu~~. M.
~ ~ft..."",.
.~ ~U:~te~~~pp;6~ed by the Board on ClpML 41 too 5
presented / or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 412