Agenda 04/22-23/2008 Item # 6A
Agenda Item No. 6A
April 22. 2008
Page 1 of 4
COllIER COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
3301 East Tamiami Trail. Naples, Florida 34111 . (239) 774-8383 . FAX (239) 774-4010
March 25, 2008
Mr. James L. Walker
235 North Garden Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33755
Re: Public Petition Request to Discuss Impact Fees for a Commercial Site in Immokalee
Dear Mr. Walker::
Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of
Commissioners at the meeting of April 8, 2008, regarding the above referenced subject.
Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes.
Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting.
However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the
Board's discretion. If the subject matter is currently under litigation or is an on-going
Code Enforcement case, the Board wiil hear the item but wiil not discuss the item after it
has been presented. Therefore, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of
your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting.
The meeting wiil begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W.
Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") of the government complex. Please arrange to be
present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members.
If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this
office.
Sincerely,
C?y~
James V. Mudd
County Manager
JVM/jb
cc: David Weigel, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CD&ES Administrator
Agenda Item No. 6A
April 22. 2008
Page 2 of4
Reauest to SPeak under Public Petition
Please print
Name: James (Jimmy) L. Walker, Managing Member; FD Immokalee, LLC
Address: 235 N. Garden Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755
Phone: (727)44~3444
Date of the Board Meetina vou wish to soeak: April 8'n, 2008
Must circle yes or no:
Is this subject mlltter under litigation at this time?
Yes/~
.S this subject matter an ongoing Code Enforcement case? Yes I No
Note: If either answer Is ..y...., thtt Board will hear the Item but will have no
-discussion regarding the item after It Is presented. '
Please ellDlain in deta/1the ....A..lJn YOU l!I/'e reauestina to soeak {attach additional
P8Q9 if n8OeSSlirY};
FD Immokalee, LLC Is developing a Family Dollar Store in Immokalee, along
with 2,400 sq ft of retail space. We found a piece of land, worked out 8 deal
with the owner, then confirmed on County website maps and with a call to
the County on 1128'07 that the property was properly zoned (C5).
At our original pre-app meeting with Collier County on 2113107, staff
confin-oed that the property was zoned CS'Collier Count)', arid would fall
under the C5 rules for zoning, site planning, and construction. We began full
site engineering. including building and parking layout, surface water
drainage and retention, road access, utilities location and hookup,
landscaping, and building footprint design, all based on staff's instruction
and confirmation of C5 zoning. On 4117107, as we neared completion of our
site engineering and prepared for submittal for our site plan approval, staff
member David Hedrick again confirmed that the property was zoned C5, and
was not in any existing overlay district.
~ ond SoDlgolOwllorlLoool SoltitQoIT_.., ~ol fiIeolOl.J<IN'ubUc Petlion Roqueot Form - 2COS now
form.doc
Agenda Item No. 6A
April 22, 2008
Page 3 of 4
When our civil engineer called the County to discuss fonnal submittal of the
plans on 4119107, staff member Christine WilloLlghby mentioned to our
engineer that the site might Indeed be in the Immokalee Main Street Overlay
District zoning. This zoning overlay required a whole different set of rules be
followed as to the layout and construction of the project. She sent it up the
ladder, and on 4123107 Zoning and Land Development Planning Manager
Ross Gorkenhauer confinned that we were indeed inside of the Immokalee
Main Street Overlay District. He also confirmed that his staff had made
numerous mistakes in telling us the property was in C5 zoning, apologized
for the error, and offered to refund any money we had spent on appUcations
up to that point.
While we appreciated Mr. Gorkenhauer's candor in admitting the mistake, as
well as the ofter of a refund, we were by this time committed to the site, in
that we had already paid for environmental reports, surveys, soil borings,
legal fees, full civil drawings, etc., as well as non-refundable deposits on the
land, all adding up to over $75,000. We also had an executed lease with the
tenant.
We therefore decided to proceed with the project, but had to start from the
beginning with an entirely new set of crvil engineering plans. We went
through the process again and this time received our site permits. However,
when we submitted for our building permits on March 5, 2008~ we found out
that the county had increased the impact fees effective January 1, 2008. 'fhls
resulted in an increase of $47,387.47 to us.
If we had not had the delay caused by the necessity of redesigning the whole
site (because we were given incorrect zoning information from the County),
we would have submitted for building permits at least 83 days (the number of
days it took to redraw all plans once the mistake was discovered) sooner, on
or before December 13, 2007, and would have paid the lower impact fees.
C:lDoc:unwa ond ~ StIIIngo\T_y In\emol FihllllOLIIIIN'ubHo P_ Roquoot Form - 200Il new
1Unn._
Agenda Item No. 6A
April 22, 2008
Page 4 of 4
Please elCDIain in detai/ll1e action YOu aAl asklna the Commission to lake (attach
adcfllional ........ If ..-........l;
We are requesting that the Commission allow us to pay the impact fee
amouot we would have been accessed had we been able to submit for
permits on or before December 13, 2007.
~-~54IIlIngIocr~_FIIoII\Ol.KIl\Publio_RoquootF_-=<W8'"